Retrieve all installed Blender add-ons with their enabled state and version. Choose markdown for readable output or JSON for structured data to manage your add-on setup.
List every available Blender add-on with its enabled state and version.
| 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 cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the behavioral burden is lowered. The description adds value by indicating the output includes enabled state and version, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as performance, pagination, or error scenarios.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and key output details. It contains no filler or redundant information.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and strong annotations, so much of the context is already present. However, the existence of the sibling blender_list_installed_addons creates ambiguity about what 'every available' means vs. 'installed', and the description does not clarify this distinction, which an agent needs for confident selection.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter response_format is fully described with an enum, a default, and a clear description. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List') and resource ('every available Blender add-on') and states the key output fields ('enabled state and version'). It is clear about the tool's purpose, but it does not differentiate it from the sibling tool blender_list_installed_addons, which is likely to overlap in meaning.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_list_installed_addons or blender_manage_addon. No conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios are provided, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.