Execute any Blender operator by its name, passing optional parameters for precise control.
Execute a bpy.ops operator by name.
Args: operator_name: Full operator name (e.g., 'mesh.primitive_cube_add'). params: Optional dict of operator parameters (e.g., {'size': 2, 'location': [0,0,0]}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | ||
| operator_name | Yes |
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 only says to execute an operator and gives parameter examples; it does not disclose that operators can modify the scene, have side effects, potentially fail, or what the return value (if any) is. This is a significant transparency gap for a generic execution 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 minimal and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by clear Args documentation. No filler, examples are directly useful, and it is appropriately sized for a simple generic tool.
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 powerful escape-hatch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits error behavior, whether the operator returns anything, safety warnings about destructive operators, and the intended use case relative to the large sibling family. The agent is left without enough context to call it safely.
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: both parameters are explained with format and concrete examples ('mesh.primitive_cube_add', {'size': 2, 'location': [0,0,0]}). It adds useful meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could go further by listing common operator parameter conventions.
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 tool executes a bpy.ops operator by name, with verb ('Execute') and resource ('bpy.ops operator'). It gives a concrete example that distinguishes it from generic code execution, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the many sibling tools or from execute_blender_code.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus the many dedicated sibling tools (e.g., add_material, create_object). The description only covers arguments and does not mention that this is a low-level escape hatch for cases where no specific tool exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.