Export 3D objects from Blender to file formats like FBX, OBJ, GLTF, STL, USD, PLY, or ABC. Choose to export all objects or only selected ones.
Export objects to a 3D model file.
Args: filepath: Output file path. file_type: FBX, OBJ, GLTF, GLB, STL, USD, PLY, ABC, etc. selected_only: Only export selected objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filepath | Yes | ||
| file_type | No | ||
| selected_only | 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates this creates a file on disk and supports restricting the export to selected objects, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, what happens when file_type is left empty, or what the operation returns or reports on completion.
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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clean Args block with one line per parameter. Every line earns its place with no filler.
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?
The description covers the core call and parameters adequately, but as a file-writing tool with no annotations or output schema, it leaves gaps: file overwrite behavior, file_type default resolution, and its relationship to the specialized export siblings. These are meaningful for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
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 add meaning, and it does: file_type lists valid formats and selected_only explains its scope. Filepath is described only as 'Output file path,' which is somewhat redundant with the parameter name, but the overall compensation is solid.
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 clear verb and resource: export objects to a 3D model file. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools export_fbx, export_glb, and export_obj, so an agent gets little help deciding between the generic exporter and the specialized ones.
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?
The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus the dedicated format-specific exporters (export_fbx, export_glb, export_obj). There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or the scenario in which the generic export_file is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.