blender_mcp_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that connecting does not mutate the scene, which is valuable. However, it omits other side effects of connect (e.g., that it initializes/starts a stdio process and may block up to the timeout) and any error/auth behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the routing note placed second. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mode selection, and the non-mutating trait adequately. It could say a bit more about what 'discover tools and schemas' returns or how connection failures surface, but nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'connect' and 'timeout_ms' fully documented including defaults and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 specific verbs and resource: inspect the Blender MCP configuration, or connect and discover the remote server's tools and schemas. It also explicitly routes to blender_mcp_call for scene inspection, distinguishing it from the call/edit siblings.

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 clear context on the two modes (inspect vs. connect) and clarifies that connecting does not edit the scene. It names an alternative path (get_scene_info via blender_mcp_call) for checking the Blender addon, but does not state when NOT to use this tool beyond that.

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