bb_list_elementsList outliner elements with IDs, transforms, and optional geometry. Filter by type or parent.
List outliner elements with their ids, transforms and (optionally) geometry. Filter by type or parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | cube, mesh, group, locator, null_object, bounding_box, texture_mesh, armature, armature_bone | |
| parent | No | ||
| include_faces | No | ||
| include_geometry | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return payload (ids, transforms, optional geometry) which is genuinely useful. However it does not state that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, nor anything about result size or limits, leaving the safety profile implied by the word "List".
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and return contents come first and the filter capability last. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves some ambiguity that a slightly longer treatment could resolve.
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?
With 4 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core operation adequately but leaves include_faces undefined and says nothing about the expected shape or volume of results. For an unpaginated list tool this is a minor but real gap.
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 coverage is only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It maps reasonably to type, parent, and include_geometry ("optionally geometry"), but include_faces is never referenced and its distinction from include_geometry is left unaddressed, and the value format for parent is unexplained.
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) and resource (outliner elements) plus what is returned (ids, transforms, optionally geometry). It clearly distinguishes itself from adjacent list tools like bb_list_textures or bb_list_animations, which target different resources.
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?
"Filter by type or parent" implies the intended usage but does not say when to prefer this over alternatives such as bb_select_elements or bb_glob, nor does it state that no filtering returns everything. Usable guidance, but no explicit when/when-not routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.