Retrieve the parent-child hierarchy of Blender objects. Provide an optional object name to get its subtree, or omit it to return the full scene hierarchy.
Get the parent/child hierarchy of objects. If name is provided, returns the subtree for that object. Otherwise returns the full scene hierarchy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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?
There are no annotations to lean on, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral switch (subtree vs. full hierarchy) and implies a read-only operation. It does not spell out naming/format rules or error behavior, but for a hierarchy getter the essential behavior is covered.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the conditional behavior. No filler or redundancy. The most important information appears first.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It could mention what happens for a nonexistent object or whether the subtree includes children recursively, but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 declares a nullable 'name' with no description, but the tool description explains exactly how it changes behavior: providing it returns the subtree, omitting returns the whole hierarchy. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get the parent/child hierarchy of objects." It also names the exact conditional behavior (subtree vs full scene), which makes its purpose unmistakable and visually distinct from sibling tools like list or material tools.
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?
The description tells the agent exactly when the optional parameter matters: providing a name returns a subtree, omitting it returns the full scene hierarchy. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the two-branch guidance is clear enough for selection and invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.