Parent an object to a specific bone in an armature for rigging. Specify armature, bone, and object to establish the parenting relationship.
Parent an object to a bone (for rigging).
Args: armature_name: Target armature. bone_name: Bone to parent to. object_name: Object to parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bone_name | Yes | ||
| object_name | Yes | ||
| armature_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention prerequisites, whether existing parenting is replaced, transform effects, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating rigging operation.
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 with the core action, followed by a minimal Args list. There is no filler or redundant 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 three-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose and all parameter meanings. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral side effects and prerequisites, making it only minimally complete.
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 schema has no descriptions for its properties, so the Args list adds real meaning by defining armature_name, bone_name, and object_name. It clarifies the parent-child relationship, though it could specify naming or existence requirements.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Parent an object to a bone (for rigging).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like parent_objects or batch_parent by targeting a bone specifically rather than another object.
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 phrase 'for rigging' implies the intended use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as parent_objects or batch_parent. It gives context but no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.