Skip to main content
Glama
HoldMyBeer-gg

blend-ai

by HoldMyBeer-gg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

parent_mesh_to_armature

Attach a mesh object to an armature to enable skeletal deformation for animation, using automatic weights, bone names, or envelopes.

Instructions

Parent a mesh object to an armature with automatic weights or other methods.

Args: mesh_name: Name of the mesh object to parent. armature_name: Name of the armature object. type: Parenting method. One of: ARMATURE_AUTO (automatic weights), ARMATURE_NAME (by bone names), ARMATURE_ENVELOPE (by envelope).

Returns: Confirmation dict.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoARMATURE_AUTO
mesh_nameYes
armature_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 / type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "ARMATURE_AUTO",
+  "ARMATURE_ENVELOPE",
+  "ARMATURE_NAME"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "parent_mesh_to_armatureDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 discloses that parenting creates automatic weights or uses other methods and returns a confirmation dict, but it omits key side effects: whether existing modifiers/vertex groups are changed, whether object transforms are preserved, what permissions or scene state are required, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then uses clear Args and Returns sections. Every part earns its place, though the Returns section is slightly redundant because an output schema already exists. Overall it is compact and well organized.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the purpose, all parameter meanings, and a brief return note, which is enough to invoke it correctly. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks usage guidance and side-effect disclosure, leaving clear contextual gaps.

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. It names and explains all three parameters, including the meaning of each enum value for `type` (ARMATURE_AUTO, ARMATURE_NAME, ARMATURE_ENVELOPE), which the schema lists but does not explain. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Parent a mesh object to an armature.' It clearly states scope with 'automatic weights or other methods.' It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling generic `parent_objects`, but the armature-specific naming and description make the purpose clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the generic `parent_objects` tool. The methods are listed for the `type` parameter, but the description never says when to choose this tool over other parenting tools.

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