Delete a named Blender scene to manage project structure; the last remaining scene is protected from deletion.
Delete a scene by name.
Args: scene_name: Name of the scene to delete. Cannot delete the last remaining scene.
Returns: Confirmation dict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / nameRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Name",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / scene_nameAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Scene Name",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "scene_name"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 'cannot delete the last remaining scene' precondition and that a confirmation dict is returned, but it says nothing about whether objects inside the scene are deleted or orphaned, whether the operation is reversible, or what errors look like.
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?
Short and front-loaded: the action is stated in the first sentence, followed by Args and Returns. The Args/Returns scaffolding is boilerplate but not wasteful here.
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?
An output schema exists so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the last-scene constraint is captured. What is missing for a destructive, annotation-less tool is the consequence of deletion (effect on contained objects, irreversibility), leaving an agent under-informed about the blast radius.
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%, so the description must compensate; it does at least describe scene_name as the name of the scene to delete and ties it to the delete constraint. But it adds no format/type details (e.g., exact-name matching, case sensitivity) beyond the field name itself.
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+resource (delete a scene by name), which clearly distinguishes it from the other delete_* siblings (delete_object, delete_material, delete_light) and from list_scenes/create_scene. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no mention of side effects on referenced scenes. The only context given is the constraint that the last remaining scene cannot be deleted, which is a precondition rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.