Switch Blender's viewport shading between wireframe, solid, material, and rendered modes to preview geometry or materials while modeling.
Set the viewport shading mode.
Args: mode: Shading mode. One of: WIREFRAME, SOLID, MATERIAL, RENDERED.
Returns: Confirmation dict with the new shading mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / mode / enumAdded value: +[
+ "MATERIAL",
+ "RENDERED",
+ "SOLID",
+ "WIREFRAME"
+]v1.2.2Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "set_viewport_shadingDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only states that it returns a confirmation dict. It does not disclose whether this affects only the viewport display or also rendering, what permissions or active context are required, or whether the change 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with purpose first and parameter/return details clearly separated. Every sentence is necessary, and there is no filler.
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 simple one-parameter enum tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameter values, and return type; the main gap is the absence of usage guidance, which is minor given the tool's low complexity.
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 single parameter and lists the allowed enum values, but adds no meaning beyond what the enum already specifies in the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the viewport shading mode.' This is unambiguous and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like set_viewport_overlay or get_viewport_screenshot.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The implied usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.