Set up a new Blender scene with a custom name, optionally copying the current scene's settings as a starting point.
Create a new scene.
Args: name: Name for the new scene. copy_current: If True, copy the current scene's settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Scene | |
| copy_current | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states it creates a scene and describes the copy_current parameter, but it does not disclose whether the new scene becomes active, whether unsaved changes to the current scene are affected, or what happens if the name matches an existing scene. This lack of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details in a clean list. There is zero filler, and the structure front-loads the key action. It earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the basics, but it omits critical contextual details such as whether the new scene becomes the active scene, any impact on the current scene, and how it differs from the sibling 'new_scene'. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has insufficient information to confidently use this tool correctly in a real workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters: 'name' is the scene's name, and 'copy_current' copies the current scene's settings. Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), this is essential and adds real meaning beyond the bare property definitions. The explanation is functional, though it could be more detailed about the scope of 'settings'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a new scene, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from obviously different tools like switch_scene and delete_scene. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'new_scene', which likely serves a similar purpose, so the clarity is good but not excellent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. In particular, the sibling 'new_scene' could be an overlapping or alternative method to create scenes, yet the description offers no hints on selection criteria. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.