Find Blender operators by keyword when you only know part of a name. Quickly search the operator namespace to locate the right command.
Search Blender's operator namespace by keyword. Faster than blender_list_operators when you only know part of a name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| response_format | No | 'markdown' for readable output, 'json' for raw structured data. | json |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's extra context about scope ('operator namespace'), search semantics, and speed comparison adds useful value without contradiction. It could disclose more about match behavior, but the annotations lower the bar.
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?
Two sentences with the main action front-loaded and the comparative guidance in the second. No redundant filler.
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 search tool with read-only annotations and a documented response_format parameter, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call it. Lacking an output schema, a bit more specificity about what is returned (matching operator names) would make it fully complete.
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 only 33% (only response_format is documented), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' is a keyword lookup into the operator namespace, but it does not explain the 'limit' semantics or result matching beyond the schema. The remaining parameters are largely self-evident from names, defaults, and enum.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource (Blender's operator namespace) and states keyword-based lookup. It also differentiates from sibling blender_list_operators by noting it is faster for partial-name lookup.
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?
It names the alternative tool (blender_list_operators) and gives the specific condition ('when you only know part of a name') that makes this tool the better choice. This is explicit routing with no inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.