blender_mcp_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description still adds the non-obvious fact that connecting initializes a server without editing the scene. That is exactly the kind of context that keeps an agent from fearing a mutation. It does not describe what a status inspection returns or how discovery failures surface, which keeps it from a 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the two modes stated first and the routing hint second. Each sentence carries distinct information: what the tool does, then what it is not for.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for telling an agent what an inspection returns, and it does not: it never says whether the result is configuration fields, a connection status, or a tool list. The mutation boundary and the sibling redirect are covered, but for a diagnostic-style tool the missing output shape leaves a real gap.

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% and both parameters (connect, timeout_ms) are fully documented in the schema, including the default and the BLENDER_MCP_TIMEOUT_MS fallback, so the description need not repeat them. The description only alludes to the connect flag through the phrase 'connect and discover' and says nothing about timeout semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names two specific verbs and resources: inspect the Blender MCP configuration, or connect and discover the remote server's tools and schemas. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling blender_mcp_call by pointing there for scene information, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

It makes clear that connecting is the mode that reaches the server and that scene checks belong in blender_mcp_call/get_scene_info, which effectively tells an agent when not to use this tool for scene work. It does not spell out the prerequisite ordering (that connecting must happen before other blender MCP calls succeed), so it stops short of explicit alternatives-plus-conditions guidance.

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