Get the frame range, all actions, and animated objects in a Blender scene to understand the current animation setup.
Report the frame range, all actions, and which objects are animated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | 'markdown' for readable output, 'json' for raw structured data. | json |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the report contains (frame range, actions, animated objects) but does not disclose return structure, formatting details, or whether it applies to the current scene/context, which is useful but not critical.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence of about 12 words with no filler. Each phrase contributes distinct information: frame range, actions, and animated objects.
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 low-complexity, optional-parameter info tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the core output categories. It does not specify the exact JSON/markdown return shape, but the response_format parameter and the simplicity of the tool make this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.
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?
The only parameter, response_format, is fully documented in the schema with an enum and a description, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names concrete resources: frame range, all actions, and animated objects. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like blender_set_frame, blender_list_objects, and blender_insert_keyframe, which cover different aspects of animation and scene state.
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 implies when to use the tool—whenever animation state information is needed—but it gives no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not say 'use this instead of X' or describe when another sibling would be more appropriate, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.