Skip to main content
Glama
HoldMyBeer-gg

blend-ai

by HoldMyBeer-gg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

enable_dyntopo

Activates dynamic topology in Blender for adaptive sculpting, adding or removing mesh detail as you work so resolution follows brush needs without uniform subdivision.

Instructions

Enable dynamic topology (dyntopo) for adaptive sculpting resolution.

Dyntopo adds and removes mesh detail dynamically as you sculpt, allowing unlimited detail where needed without uniform subdivision.

Args: object_name: Name of the mesh object (must be in sculpt mode or will enter it). detail_size: Detail level (smaller = more detail). Range: 0.1-500.0. detail_mode: Detail mode. One of: RELATIVE, CONSTANT, BRUSH, MANUAL.

Returns: Confirmation dict with dyntopo settings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detail_modeNoRELATIVE
detail_sizeNo
object_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail_mode / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "BRUSH",
+  "CONSTANT",
+  "MANUAL",
+  "RELATIVE"
+]
  2. Addedv1.2.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important side effect — that it will enter sculpt mode automatically — and explains what dyntopo changes about the mesh (adds/removes detail dynamically). However, it does not say whether enabling it modifies existing geometry irreversibly, whether it requires an active object, or how it interacts with existing multires/subdivision, which matters for a mutation-style tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact explanatory sentence, then structured Args and Returns blocks. The Returns section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but overall the content is tight and earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter sculpt-mode mutation with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, the auto-enter-sculpt-mode side effect, and all parameter semantics. Remaining gaps are reversibility/undo behavior and interaction with other subdivision modifiers, which would round it out but are not blocking.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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, and it largely does: it names all three parameters, explains detail_size semantics ('smaller = more detail') with a numeric range, and enumerates the valid detail_mode values. It could go further by clarifying detail_size units or RELATIVE vs CONSTANT behavior, but it adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Enable dynamic topology (dyntopo)') and adds a one-line explanation of what dyntopo does behaviorally, so the agent knows exactly what capability is being turned on. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like enter_sculpt_mode or set_sculpt_brush, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a precondition ('must be in sculpt mode or will enter it') but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as set_sculpt_brush or remesh. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools