protein-blender-mcp

load_file

Load local molecular structure files (.pdb, .cif, .bcif, .sdf, .mol) into a Blender scene to style, color, and render proteins.

Instructions

Load a local structure file (.pdb, .cif, .bcif, .sdf, .mol) into the scene.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "load_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	Yes
`color`	No	chain
`style`	No	cartoon
`material`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether loading adds to or replaces existing scene content, what happens when the path is invalid or the format is unsupported, whether the call is idempotent, or what a successful call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the supported formats listed inline. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A four-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs considerably more description than one sentence. Critical calling context — scene side effects, error behavior, and the meaning of the styling options — is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, and the description only adds meaning for `path` (the accepted file extensions). The `color` option with its "chain" default and the `style`/`material` rendering options are entirely unexplained, so the agent must guess at their effect from bare enum values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Load a local structure file ... into the scene") and enumerates the accepted formats (.pdb, .cif, .bcif, .sdf, .mol), which lets an agent tell it apart from fetch_structure. It falls short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with fetch_structure or execute_blender_python.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word "local" only weakly implies that remote retrieval belongs to fetch_structure, and nothing tells the agent how this relates to add_style, set_background, or render_image in a pipeline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server