Convert an object between MESH, CURVE, and other types in Blender for 3D modeling.
Convert an object to a different type.
Args: object_name: Name of the object to convert. target: Target type. One of: MESH, CURVE, SURFACE, META, FONT, CURVES, POINTCLOUD, GPENCIL.
Returns: Confirmation dict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | MESH | |
| object_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / target / enumAdded value: +[
+ "CURVE",
+ "CURVES",
+ "FONT",
+ "GPENCIL",
+ "MESH",
+ "META",
+ "POINTCLOUD",
+ "SURFACE"
+]v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the return is a 'Confirmation dict,' but it does not disclose whether conversion is destructive, whether it replaces the original object, what data may be lost, or what side effects occur.
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?
The description is short and front-loads the core purpose before a structured Args/Returns block. It is efficient, though the 'Returns: Confirmation dict' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema.
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 conversion tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete about behavioral effects such as whether the original object is modified or replaced. The output schema covers return values, but key mutation and safety context 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 0%, and the description adds little beyond the schema. The allowed target values it lists are already present as an enum, and `object_name` is described only as 'Name of the object to convert' with no further detail. It does not mention the default target of MESH or clarify required versus optional arguments.
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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Convert an object to a different type.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from the sibling `convert_curve_to_mesh`, which is a more specific conversion operation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `convert_curve_to_mesh` or `create_curve`. It also omits any prerequisites or exclusions for performing a conversion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.