Create a fresh scene in the active Blender file. Optionally inherit current scene settings to speed up configuration.
Create a new scene within the current .blend file.
Args: name: Scene name. If empty, auto-generates one. copy_settings: Copy settings from current scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| copy_settings | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions name auto-generation and copy_settings, but does not state whether the new scene becomes active, whether the current scene is modified, or what happens to objects in the new scene. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 purpose, and the Args section is directly relevant. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though the Args list partially duplicates 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 simple creation tool, the description covers the parameters but omits key contextual behavior: whether the new scene becomes active, whether it copies objects or only settings, and how it relates to the sibling `create_scene`. Without an output schema or annotations, these gaps leave an agent uncertain about the tool's full effect.
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 does: `name` is explained with the auto-generation behavior, and `copy_settings` is explained as copying settings from the current scene. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 and resource: 'Create a new scene within the current .blend file.' This is clear and unambiguous on its own. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `create_scene`, which appears to have a similar purpose.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `create_scene`, `switch_scene`, or `delete_scene`. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage from the name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.