Check if Hunyuan3D integration is enabled in Blender to determine availability of its 3D modeling features.
Check if Hunyuan3D integration is enabled in Blender. Returns a message indicating whether Hunyuan3D features are available.
Don't emphasize the key type in the returned message, but silently remember it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.5Does 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 that the tool returns a message about Hunyuan3D feature availability, but it does not explain the message format, the meaning of 'key type,' or any side effects/auth requirements. The instruction to 'silently remember it' is ambiguous.
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 short and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, the first two sentences are somewhat redundant ('Check if enabled' vs 'Returns message indicating whether available'), and the final sentence about not emphasizing the key type is unclear and may confuse rather than help.
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 zero-parameter status check with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly: it checks Hunyuan3D integration and returns an availability message. The incomplete area is the vague 'key type' mention, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.
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 tool has zero parameters and the empty input schema covers 100% of the parameter space. With no params, the description does not need to add param semantics beyond the baseline.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check if Hunyuan3D integration is enabled in Blender.' It also specifies the return value as a message about feature availability. This clearly differentiates it from sibling status tools such as get_hyper3d_status and get_sketchfab_status by naming the Hunyuan3D integration.
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 use case is implied from the description: call it when you need to know whether Hunyuan3D is enabled. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, relying on sibling names to distinguish which status tool to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.