Lists every material with its users, node count, linked images, and blend settings to review scene material usage.
List every material with its users, the objects using it, node count, linked images and blend settings.
| 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.
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, and the description's 'List' wording aligns with these. The description adds output-field context but does not mention file requirements, truncation, or performance behavior; with read-only annotations, a 3 is appropriate.
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 states the action, scope, and report fields with no filler. It is front-loaded and economical.
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 description plus schema cover the report fields and both parameters well enough for typical use. However, the 'every material' claim conflicts with the default limit, and the lack of output-schema details leaves room for ambiguity about the exact return structure.
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 description says 'every material' while the schema's limit parameter defaults to 200 and has no description, so an agent may not realize the result can be truncated. It adds no meaning for limit or response_format beyond what the schema already provides for response_format.
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') with a clear resource ('every material') and enumerates the report fields: users, objects, node count, linked images, and blend settings. This distinguishes it from the bare blender_list_materials sibling and from shader/render reports.
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 the tool is for material auditing when an agent needs usage and node/image details. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over blender_list_materials or blender_shader_info, and it offers no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.