Establish a parent-child hierarchy in Blender by binding a child object to a parent. Optionally preserve the child's world transform to avoid visual jumps during reparenting.
Set parent-child relationship between objects.
Args: child: Name of the child object. parent: Name of the parent object. keep_transform: If True, maintain the child's current world transform.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| child | Yes | ||
| parent | Yes | ||
| keep_transform | No |
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 states the operation and one effect of keep_transform, but does not mention what happens to an existing parent relationship, transform behavior when keep_transform is false, object existence requirements, or error cases.
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 concise, front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, and followed by structured argument documentation. Every line earns its place with no redundant or filler content.
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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and all parameters. However, it lacks behavioral consequences, constraints, and any statement about what happens to world transforms when keep_transform is not True, leaving the definition adequate but not fully 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It provides brief definitions for all three parameters ('child', 'parent', 'keep_transform'), which is helpful, but the explanations are minimal and lack details like naming conventions, accepted references, or default behavior nuances.
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 clearly states the action ('Set parent-child relationship') and the resource ('objects'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'batch_parent', which likely performs a similar operation for multiple objects, so it stops short of a 5.
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 such as 'batch_parent' or 'parent_bone_to_object'. The description only explains the parameters and leaves the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.