Switch the active scene camera in Blender by specifying a camera object name, so renders and viewport output use the intended viewpoint.
Set the active scene camera.
Args: object_name: Name of the camera object to make active.
Returns: Confirmation dict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_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 / object_nameAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Object Name",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "object_name"
+]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 discloses only that a confirmation dict is returned; it does not say what happens if object_name is not a valid camera, whether the prior active camera is replaced, or any permission/state constraints.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and structured as Args/Returns. It is brief and every sentence serves a purpose, though the Returns line is redundant given an output schema exists.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the basic mechanics and an output schema covers return values. It is still missing behavioral context (error cases, effect on the previous active camera) that an agent would want before invoking.
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 add real meaning by specifying the value must be the name of a camera object to make active, but it gives no format, naming convention, or validation detail.
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 ('Set the active scene camera'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like set_camera_property or point_camera_at. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer that this selects a camera as active rather than configuring one, with no help from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.