Restore the last undone change in a Blender scene, returning it to its pre-undo state to reverse an accidental undo.
Redo the last undone change, restoring the scene to the state it had
before the matching blender_undo call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, and the description adds the key behavioral detail that it restores the prior scene state. It does not disclose edge behavior such as what happens when there is no undo history to redo, but it is consistent with the annotations.
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, focused sentence that states the operation and its effect without wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and easily parsed.
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 tool with one optional, well-documented parameter, the description is largely complete. It could mention the behavior when no undo history exists, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and clear pairing with blender_undo.
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 an enum and description. The tool description does not add extra parameter guidance, but the schema already carries the full burden.
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 and resource: 'Redo the last undone change' and explains the result clearly as restoring the scene to its state before the matching blender_undo call. This differentiates it from sibling tools, especially blender_undo.
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 correct usage context: it should be used after blender_undo to reverse that undo action. It clearly connects to the matching blender_undo call, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.