Skip to main content
Glama
Eminemminem

BlenderMCP

by Eminemminem

get_polyhaven_status

Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender to verify availability of its features for 3D modeling and scene creation.

Instructions

Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender. Returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool() that implements the 'get_polyhaven_status' tool. It queries the Blender connection for PolyHaven status and formats the response.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_polyhaven_status(ctx: Context) -> str:
        """
        Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender.
        Returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available.
        """
        try:
            blender = get_blender_connection()
            result = blender.send_command("get_polyhaven_status")
            enabled = result.get("enabled", False)
            message = result.get("message", "")
            if enabled:
                message += "PolyHaven is good at Textures, and has a wider variety of textures than Sketchfab."
            return message
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error checking PolyHaven status: {str(e)}")
            return f"Error checking PolyHaven status: {str(e)}"
Behavior3/5

Does 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 tool 'Returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or specific return formats, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for an agent.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the return. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information. There is no wasted text, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and return, but lacks details on error cases, integration specifics, or how the message is formatted. For a simple status check, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in contextual richness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the absence of parameters without adding unnecessary information.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender.' This specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('PolyHaven integration in Blender'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hyper3d_status' or 'get_sketchfab_status', which have similar checking functions for other integrations, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over other status-checking tools like 'get_hyper3d_status'. Without such information, users must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Eminemminem/blender-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server