List all actions in the current Blender scene, including frame ranges, user counts, slot names, and how many objects use each action.
List every action with its frame range, user count, slot names and how many objects use it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | 'markdown' for readable output, 'json' for raw structured data. | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'every action' scope and the output fields, but does not disclose output size, formatting behavior, or edge cases; the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each phrase contributes meaningful detail about what the tool returns.
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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and a fully documented optional parameter, the description adequately tells the agent what it will receive. It does not explicitly state the source scope (e.g., current .blend file) or sorting order, but these are minor and unlikely to prevent correct invocation.
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 a clear description of 'markdown' vs 'json' and a default value. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed because schema coverage is 100%.
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 ('List') and resource ('actions') and enumerates the exact returned fields: frame range, user count, slot names, and object usage count. This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like blender_manage_action and from other list tools.
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 it should be used when an agent needs an inventory of actions and their metadata, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not point to alternatives such as blender_manage_action for modifying actions, so selection is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.