blender_mcp_call

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key traits: 'Calls can modify the active Blender scene and are never automatically retried.' That mutation warning and no-retry disclosure are exactly the safety context an agent needs. It omits auth/permission or concurrency details, so not a full 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the discovery prerequisite. Each sentence carries information, though the mid-sentence mention of execute_blender_code's parameters is slightly tangential to the tool's own purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating it preserves 'its full MCP content and errors.' Combined with the mutation and no-retry disclosures and a documented timeout default, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents tool_name, arguments, and timeout_ms. The description only lightly augments this, noting that execute_blender_code accepts Python code and user_prompt. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Call a discovered tool on the configured Blender MCP server.' It names the sibling it depends on (blender_mcp_status) and clarifies the proxy nature of the tool, distinguishing it from the actual Blender tools it dispatches to.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite flow: 'Discover tool schemas with blender_mcp_status first,' and names a concrete example (execute_blender_code). It does not, however, explain when to prefer this over blender_mcp_edit_model, leaving one sibling relationship implicit.

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