Split a mesh object into parts using selection, material, or loose geometry separation. Returns confirmation after dividing the mesh.
Separate a mesh into parts.
Args: object_name: Name of the mesh object. type: Separation method. One of: SELECTED, MATERIAL, LOOSE.
Returns: Confirmation dict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | SELECTED | |
| object_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / type / enumAdded value: +[
+ "LOOSE",
+ "MATERIAL",
+ "SELECTED"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says the return is a 'Confirmation dict'; it does not disclose that this is a destructive mutation, what happens to the original object, whether new objects appear in the scene, or whether the original is removed. For an unannotated mesh-mutating tool this is a significant gap.
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 purpose line is short and front-loaded, but the Args/Returns boilerplate largely duplicates schema titles and the enum, and the 'Returns: Confirmation dict' line is redundant given an output schema exists. Efficient in size but not every line earns its place.
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?
The output schema covers return values, so that line isn't needed, but for an unannotated, destructive, 0%-coverage two-parameter tool the description is too thin: it omits side effects and the distinguishing behavior of each separation mode, which an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 names the two parameters and their intent, but listing SELECTED/MATERIAL/LOOSE merely restates the schema enum without explaining what each separation method actually does — precisely the semantics 0%-coverage schema leaves undocumented.
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 and resource ('Separate a mesh into parts') that an agent can act on. However it never differentiates itself from obvious siblings like join_objects, and doesn't clarify what 'parts' means for each mode. Clear but no sibling routing.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives (e.g., join_objects as the inverse, or which tool to use for splitting by material vs. disconnected geometry). The agent gets no help choosing this tool over the many other mesh-editing siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.