List all materials in the current Blender file with their names and usage counts to quickly identify, audit, or manage material assignments and dependencies.
List all materials in the current blend file with their names and usage counts.
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the scope ('current blend file') and the data returned (names and usage counts), covering essential behavior. It does not mention potential side effects (none expected) or edge cases like unused materials, but for a simple listing this is adequate.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key detail (usage counts). No wasted words or redundant phrases.
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 is sufficient for a parameterless listing tool. It specifies scope and output content. Given no output schema, it could have mentioned the exact response structure, but the description already conveys the essential information an agent needs 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?
The tool has no parameters and the schema has no properties, so the description has nothing to add beyond the baseline for zero-parameter tools. The schema coverage is 100% and the description does not mislead.
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 (list), resource (materials), and the exact data returned (names and usage counts). It clearly distinguishes from material editing tools like assign_material and set_material_property, which are mutations rather than read-only queries.
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 implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as list_objects or get_scene_summary. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions, so the agent must infer its role as the go-to tool for enumerating materials.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.