Remove a material from a specific slot on a Blender object. Specify the object name and slot index to clear the assigned material.
Remove material from an object's slot.
Args: object_name: Target object. slot: Material slot index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | No | ||
| object_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a mutating/removing action but does not explain whether the material is destroyed, whether the slot is removed, or what happens to other slots. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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 and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is minimal and directly useful, with no redundant or filler content.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not state post-conditions, error cases, or whether the material is permanently deleted, leaving an agent to guess at the full impact of the operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic one-line meanings for both parameters ('Target object' and 'Material slot index'), which adds value beyond the raw schema. However, it does not clarify indexing convention (0-based vs 1-based), the default slot behavior, or that slot is optional.
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 states a specific action ('Remove material') on a specific resource ('an object's slot'), which clearly distinguishes it from assign_material and set_material_property. However, it leaves slight ambiguity about whether the material data-block itself is deleted or just unassigned from the slot.
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 about when to use this tool versus related siblings like reassign_material_slot or assign_material. The description simply states the operation without contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.