Set Blender scene properties such as frame range, fps, or render engine by specifying property name and value. Adjust key scene settings directly.
Set a scene-level property (e.g., frame_start, frame_end, fps, render_engine).
Args: property_name: The property to set (e.g., 'frame_start', 'render_resolution_x'). value: The value to set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| property_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 must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Set', implying mutation, but doesn't mention whether values are validated, if errors are raised, if the operation is reversible, or what happens on invalid property names. 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 and front-loaded with the purpose, then lists the args. It repeats parameter names from the schema but adds useful examples. No fluff, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.
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 generic setter with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs to know behavior on invalid inputs, whether the tool returns confirmation, and how it relates to more specific tools. This description provides none of that, leaving the agent to guess. It's minimally sufficient for a trivial call but lacks important context.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples for property_name ('frame_start', 'render_resolution_x') and shows value can be multiple types, but it doesn't enumerate valid properties or constraints. It adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but not enough to fully cover the 0% description gap.
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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'scene-level property', with concrete examples like frame_start and fps. It distinguishes from siblings like set_fps or set_animation_range by being generic, but it doesn't explicitly contrast them, so it misses full differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied from the generic nature of the tool – it's for any scene property, not just those with dedicated tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like set_fps or configure_render, and no exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.