No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 276 tools
The descriptions are unusually diligent about cross-referencing near-duplicates (create_material vs create_principled_material vs create_procedural_material, boolean_operation vs booltool_auto_*, join_objects vs booltool_auto_union, set_smooth_shading vs shade_auto_smooth). However, at 276 tools there are large clusters with genuinely close boundaries: many select_* mesh tools, several material/shader setters, insert_keyframe vs keyframe_property vs add_driver, and multiple 'set_*_property' tools per domain. An agent can usually pick correctly after reading, but misselection risk across such a dense surface is real.
Almost everything is snake_case with a verb prefix (create_/add_/set_/list_/delete_/manage_/get_), and domain prefixes (booltool_auto_, uv_, gp_) are used consistently for grouping. Minor deviations exist (single-word 'remesh', 'keyframe_property' as a verb-less name, legacy 'boolean_operation' and 'edit_mesh_operation' style), but the pattern is highly readable.
276 tools for a Blender control server is an extreme surface; even though Blender is a vast domain, this far exceeds the 15-tool guideline and pushes tool selection into retrieval-by-reading rather than recognition. Many niche operations (annotation strokes, bone collections, view layer overrides) add cognitive load disproportionate to their use frequency.
Coverage is essentially exhaustive across modeling, sculpting, UVs, materials/shader nodes, geometry nodes, lighting, cameras, animation/NLA/drivers, physics, grease pencil, compositing, sequencer/video, rendering settings, assets and file I/O, with paired inspection tools (get_scene_info, analyze_mesh_quality, get_geometry_node_tree) preventing dead ends. Hard to identify a meaningful gap in the stated Blender-automation purpose.