Get complete data for a Blender object—transform, world bounding box, topology, shading, modifiers, material slots, UVs, and children—to inspect or debug scene assets.
Everything about one object: transform, world bbox, topology (tris/quads/ngons), shading, modifier settings, material slots, UVs, children.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully enumerates the returned facets (compensating for the missing output schema), implying a read-only introspection call, but it never states that it is non-mutating, what happens if the name is not found, or any permission/error behavior.
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 followed by a dense parenthetical list of returned fields; nothing is padded. Slightly list-heavy but every item earns its place by defining scope of the inspection.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the enumeration of returned content is the key value and it is present. However, it omits usage guidance versus siblings and parameter format, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.
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?
One parameter ('name') exists with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely implies the parameter refers to the target object, without clarifying expected format (exact name, path, uniqueness, or matching semantics).
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?
Clear specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('one object'), and it enumerates exactly what facets are reported (transform, bbox, topology, shading, modifiers, materials, UVs, children). This implicitly scopes it to a single object versus a scene-wide tool like get_scene_info, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 only implies it is for inspecting; it states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), and names no alternative such as get_scene_info for scene-level queries. An agent must infer when to pick this over its many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.