Lists every collection in a Blender scene, showing contained objects and parent-child hierarchy to clarify scene organization.
List all collections with their objects and hierarchy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the phrase 'all collections with their objects and hierarchy' communicates the returned content. However, it does not disclose output format, whether empty collections are included, or how hierarchy is represented.
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 one short sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler or repeated schema information.
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 no-argument, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, scope, and included content. The lack of an output schema means some return-format details are unspecified, but the description gives enough for an agent to understand what the tool provides.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already documents this completely with 100% coverage. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter behavior, so the baseline of 4 applies.
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 uses a clear verb and resource: it lists all collections and explicitly includes objects and hierarchy. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_objects by focusing on collections, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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 alternatives like list_objects, get_scene_summary, or the collection mutation tools. The description only says what it does, leaving usage decisions entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.