Create a new material with optional base color. Set RGB values from 0 to 1 to define the initial color.
Create a new material. Optionally set an initial base color as [r, g, b] with values 0-1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Material | |
| color | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the core behavior (creating a new material) and the optional color initialization, but it does not disclose edge behaviors such as name collisions, whether the material is auto-assigned, or what side effects occur in the scene.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the primary action before giving the optional parameter detail. Every word adds value with no repetition or filler.
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 creation tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and clarifies the color format. Minor gaps remain around duplicate names and whether the material is attached to an object, but these are lower-priority edge cases.
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?
The schema only says color is an array of numbers or null, while the description adds the critical format '[r, g, b]' and value range '0-1'. This directly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and clarifies the only non-obvious parameter.
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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Create a new material' and optional initial base color. This differentiates it from sibling tools like blender_material_assign and blender_material_set_color, which target existing materials.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are referenced. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'create'; there is no contextual routing to distinguish it from set_color or assign beyond the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.