Lists all image datablocks in the current Blender scene, showing size, source, color space, and packed state for quick inspection.
List every image datablock with size, source, colour space and packed state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| response_format | No | 'markdown' for readable output, 'json' for raw structured data. | markdown |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the output fields, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds concrete expectations for the return content.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the specific fields are listed efficiently. It earns every word.
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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is listed and what fields are returned. The response_format parameter is documented in the schema, and limit is implied by its name/default. No critical missing context.
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 50% (only response_format has a description; limit does not). The description does not mention or clarify either parameter. While limit is self-explanatory from its name and default, the description does not compensate for the missing schema description, nor does it add meaning beyond the schema. This is a notable gap.
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'), a specific resource ('image datablock'), and the exact fields returned (size, source, colour space, packed state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like blender_list_objects or blender_list_materials, which target different datablock types.
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 usage: use when you need to inspect image datablocks. It clearly scopes to images, which is sufficient context for a simple list tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specificity is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.