Retrieve comprehensive details for any Blender object, including transforms, mesh stats, materials, modifiers, constraints, vertex groups, and shape keys, by specifying its name.
Get detailed information about a specific object: transforms, mesh stats, materials, modifiers, constraints, vertex groups, and shape keys.
Args: name: Name of the object to inspect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only inspection and the description lists the information categories returned. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state that the scene is not modified, how missing or invalid object names are handled, or whether the operation can be expensive for dense objects.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and enumerates specific categories, followed by a minimal Args block. There is no fluff or redundant explanation.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned; it lists categories but not their structure or format. It also lacks context about when to select this tool over the many similar inspection tools in the sibling list.
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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the description adds 'Name of the object to inspect,' which clarifies the role of the single 'name' parameter. It does not mention how to discover valid names or handle qualifications, but for a single simple parameter this is sufficient.
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 verb ('Get'), a resource ('specific object'), and a detailed list of data domains (transforms, mesh stats, materials, modifiers, constraints, vertex groups, shape keys). This makes it clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_mesh_statistics or get_local_transforms.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related getter tools in the sibling list. It simply describes what it returns, leaving an agent to infer when to prefer get_object_info over get_mesh_statistics, get_scene_info, or get_local_transforms.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.