Skip to main content
Glama
HoldMyBeer-gg

blend-ai

by HoldMyBeer-gg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_material_blend_mode

Set a Blender material's EEVEE blend mode to OPAQUE, CLIP, HASHED, or BLEND for correct transparency and rendering.

Instructions

Set the blend mode of a material (EEVEE).

Args: material_name: Name of the material. mode: Blend mode. One of: OPAQUE, CLIP, HASHED, BLEND.

Returns: Confirmation dict.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes
material_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 / mode / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "BLEND",
+  "CLIP",
+  "HASHED",
+  "OPAQUE"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the EEVEE-only constraint and that a confirmation dict is returned, but says nothing about required material state, error behavior for a missing material, or whether the change persists or is undoable.

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 single-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args/Returns block. Slightly boilerplate but no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be elaborated. For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers the inputs and the EEVEE scope but omits failure modes and side effects, leaving modest gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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 does list both parameters and enumerates the mode values. However, the enum is already declared in the schema, and 'Name of the material' adds little beyond the parameter name, so the compensation is only partial.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Set the blend mode of a material', with an EEVEE qualifier that scopes the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like set_material_property or set_material_color, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related siblings such as set_material_property that also mutate material settings. The EEVEE parenthetical implies context but does not state when this tool should be chosen.

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