List currently enabled Blender add-ons with their versions and module names, providing the details needed to manage them.
List the add-ons Blender currently has enabled, with versions and the
module names needed by blender_manage_addon.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds useful scope beyond annotations: it lists currently enabled add-ons, not all installed ones, and specifically includes versions and module names needed by blender_manage_addon.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds purposeful detail. Every phrase contributes: 'currently enabled', 'versions', and 'module names needed by blender_manage_addon'.
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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter, the description conveys the subject, scope, and returned fields. Annotations cover safety, and the output format is controlled by the documented response_format parameter, so the description is complete enough to invoke correctly.
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 100%, and the only parameter, response_format, is fully documented with an enum and default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?
States a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('add-ons Blender currently has enabled'), and the content ('versions and module names'). The phrase 'currently has enabled' differentiates this from merely installed add-ons and from the similarly named blender_list_addons.
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 by noting the module names are needed by blender_manage_addon, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over blender_list_addons or any other alternative. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.