Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Blender MCP Ultra

Blender MCP Ultra

by 3bdull4h2008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rename_object

Renames a Blender object by providing its current name and the new name, updating the scene hierarchy.

Instructions

Rename an object.

Args: name: Current name of the object. new_name: New name for the object.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
new_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the rename action and repeats parameter roles. It does not mention possible side effects such as broken references, naming conflicts, or whether the object must exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, and each line earns its place. There is no filler or repetition beyond explicating the two required parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter rename operation the description is adequate, but it leaves out context such as whether the name refers to an object data-block versus a scene object and what happens on name collision. An agent could invoke it correctly but might be surprised by edge-case behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The Args section clarifies that 'name' is the current name and 'new_name' is the replacement, adding minimal meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify constraints such as uniqueness, naming rules, or how collisions are handled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Rename an object,' a clear, specific verb and resource that states the tool's core operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling batch_rename, so it misses the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_rename or create_object. The description contains no conditions, exclusions, or explicit context suggesting a single-object rename.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools