Grok2Blender
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'apply_material_preset' and 'assign_material' overlap significantly in description, potentially confusing an agent. Otherwise, tools are clearly separated.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with no mixed conventions or irregularities. Examples include 'create_camera', 'export_alembic_cache', and 'set_dry_run'.
Tool Count3/5With 38 tools, the count is high for a typical MCP server, but each tool addresses a specific operation in a broad domain (Blender 3D). It borders on excessive but is still manageable.
Completeness3/5The tools cover creation, lighting, animation, rendering, and export, but lack editing operations (e.g., mesh modifiers, materials editing) and advanced features like physics or rigging. Gaps exist for a general Blender workflow.
Average 2.1/5 across 38 of 38 tools scored. Lowest: 1.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, permissions, or outcomes beyond the vague verb 'transform'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at three words, but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. The sentence provides minimal information and does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple schema but reliance on ambiguous 'kwargs', the description provides no meaningful context for correct invocation. It is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the sole parameter 'kwargs', leaving its purpose and format completely unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Transform named objects' is a tautology that restates the name without specifying what transformation means (move, scale, rotate, etc.) or how objects are identified. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'create_primitive' or 'assign_material'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There are 37 siblings, but the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or produces output files. The agent has no insight into side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the expense of informativeness. It is under-specified rather than concise, lacking essential details that would make it useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the one parameter with no schema description, no annotations, and an output schema that is never mentioned, the description is wholly inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kwargs' has no type or description in the schema, and the description adds no meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the agent cannot infer what arguments are expected or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Export Alembic cache' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It does not clarify what an Alembic cache is or distinguish this export from sibling tools like export_camera_data or export_usd_stage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., file creation), required permissions, or output format. The tool's behavior remains opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is too minimal to be useful. It contains only the tool's name as a sentence, lacking any explanatory content that would justify its brevity. Conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (1 undocumented parameter, no annotations, no usage context) and the existence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover essential aspects like parameter details, return values, or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'kwargs' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description adds no information about what parameters are accepted or how they affect the export. The agent has no guidance on parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export USD stage' is a simple restatement of the tool name, providing no differentiation from sibling tools like export_alembic_cache, export_camera_data, or export_render_passes. It lacks specificity about what a USD stage is or what the export entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, preconditions, or examples, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the action is destructive, requires permissions, or what the effect is beyond inserting a keyframe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words), which appears concise but actually under-specifies the tool; important information is missing, making it insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and many sibling tools, the description should provide context about keyframe type, usage, and return values, but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kwargs' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain its structure or expected content, so no added meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Insert object keyframe' states the verb and resource but is vague; it doesn't specify what kind of keyframe (e.g., animation, property) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'animate_camera_push_in'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description provides no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the action is destructive, reversible, or what side effects may occur. The term 'safe mode' is undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (three words), but it lacks necessary information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one undocumented parameter and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context. An AI agent cannot determine how to invoke or use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kwargs' has no type or description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what values it expects or how they affect the tool's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggle safe mode' is essentially tautological with the tool name 'set_safe_mode'. It provides a verb and resource but no further context to distinguish it from similar tools like set_dry_run or confirm_destructive_action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only states the bare action. No information about destructiveness, side effects, or permissions is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to provide necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient. The opaque 'kwargs' parameter makes the tool unusable without further documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single required parameter 'kwargs' is completely undocumented in the schema and description. The description adds no meaning, leaving the agent with no understanding of the input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set timeline range' vaguely indicates setting a timeline's range but lacks specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like insert_keyframe or animate_camera_push_in.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it provides none. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every word should add value, but here the phrase simply repeats the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a vague parameter and no usage context, the description is severely incomplete. An output schema exists but is not referenced, and the agent lacks critical information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'kwargs' has no type or description in the schema, and the description offers no additional meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter is completely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Apply material preset.' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'assign_material', which likely performs a similar function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'assign_material'. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and description provides zero behavioral disclosure (e.g., persistence, scope of changes, side effects).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the expense of information; not well-structured and fails to add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of configuring render settings, the description is severely incomplete; output schema exists but not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter 'kwargs' has no schema type or description, and the description adds no meaning. Schema coverage 0% with no compensatory information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Configure render engine' is a verb+resource but extremely vague; it doesn't specify which settings (e.g., resolution, samples) or differentiate from sibling tools like setup_hdri_environment or render_preview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, persistence, or impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short, but lacks necessary substance. Conciseness does not compensate for missing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description is grossly incomplete for a tool that presumably affects execution mode. No output schema details or behavioral context provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter 'kwargs' with 0% schema description coverage, and description adds no information about its purpose or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Toggle dry-run mode' which is a verb+resource but lacks specificity about what dry-run mode entails. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like set_safe_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No context about prerequisites or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details such as side effects, required permissions, or output characteristics. The agent is left with no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words), which favors conciseness but at the cost of being underspecified. It does not earn its place as it provides minimal information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 required parameter with no info, no annotations, and an output schema not explained), the description is thoroughly incomplete. It offers no context about return values or tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kwargs' has no type or description in the schema, and the description does not clarify its meaning or structure. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails entirely to add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export render passes.' clearly indicates the action and resource, but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like export_alembic_cache or export_usd_stage. It is adequate but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided; there is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the primitive is added to the scene, any default settings, or potential side effects. The minimal phrase 'Create mesh primitive' provides no insight beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single terse sentence, which is efficient in length but severely under-informative. Every tool description should earn its words; this one does not provide sufficient detail to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema and a single ambiguous parameter, the description offers no explanation of return values, primitive customization, or any contextual details needed for effective use. It is completely inadequate for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'kwargs', has zero schema description and the description does not explain its purpose, structure, or expected values. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter entirely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('mesh primitive'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_camera' and 'create_three_point_lighting', but the term 'primitive' is somewhat vague without specifying which primitives (e.g., cube, sphere).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., import_asset, create_camera). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention any side effects, whether the capture is blocking, what happens to the viewport, or any other behavioral trait. The description is almost empty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence). However, it sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity. It earns a middle score because it is not rambling, but is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover at least that it returns a PNG, the max_size controls resolution, and the capture targets the current viewport. None of this is present, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'max_size' with a default, but the description does not explain its meaning or effect. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Capture' and resource 'viewport PNG', and the purpose 'for vision' gives minimal context. It is not a tautology, but lacks specificity about what exactly is captured. Among sibling tools, none are for screenshots, so no sibling differentiation needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The description gives no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it creates keyframes, modifies camera properties, or requires specific permissions). The agent cannot infer side effects or preconditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While only three words, the description sacrifices necessary information for brevity. It fails to earn its place as a complete explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter with missing schema coverage, many sibling tools, and no annotations), the description is grossly insufficient. Even with an output schema, selection and invocation are severely hampered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'kwargs' with 0% description coverage (no type or description). The description adds no meaning, leaving the agent without any guidance on what to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Animate camera push-in,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks distinction from sibling tools like 'frame_camera_on_object' or 'set_active_camera' and doesn't clarify what 'push-in' means in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 37 sibling tools including many camera-related ones, the agent receives no scenario-based direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It only states 'Create' without disclosing whether the tool modifies the scene, requires selection, or has side effects. Behavioral traits like idempotency or destructive nature are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words) but lacks essential information. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity; the sentence does not earn its place as it provides insufficient value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's purpose (creating a lighting rig) and the rich context of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. No output schema details, no parameter explanations, and no usage context are provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single 'kwargs' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning about what parameters are expected, their types, or how they affect the creation. This is completely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Create area light rig'), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_three_point_lighting' or 'setup_hdri_environment'. The term 'area light rig' is ambiguous without further context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions that should be met before invocation. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without any details on side effects (e.g., modifies camera position, requires active camera), limitations, or return behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what happens when invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), but this conciseness sacrifices meaningful information. It effectively states the tool's name in words, offering no structured detail or context. The brevity is not useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with no schema detail) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, inputs, outputs, or any contextual cues needed for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'kwargs' has no schema details (0% coverage), and the description provides no explanation of what arguments are accepted or how to structure them. The agent cannot determine valid inputs from this definition alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Frame camera on object' provides a verb+resource pair, but the verb 'frame' is ambiguous and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'animate_camera_push_in' or 'set_active_camera'. It lacks specificity on what framing entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing camera) or context, making it hard for an agent to decide between this and similar camera manipulation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create shot metadata JSON' without mentioning side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words) but lacks necessary detail. It is not appropriately sized for a tool that requires structured input; brevity here results in under-specification rather than efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and a complex parameter (kwargs), the description fails to explain the structure of the metadata, the expected output, or any context about the tool's role in a larger workflow. It is incomplete for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'kwargs' with no type or description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no information about what properties 'kwargs' should contain or how to structure the input, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'shot metadata JSON', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other sibling creation tools like 'create_camera' or 'create_primitive', which also start with 'create'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks contextual cues such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to indicate whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific selections. The brief phrase does not convey side effects or state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), which sacrifices informativeness for brevity. While concise, it omits essential details and does not front-load key information effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (organizing hierarchy with multiple objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool does, returns, and requires. The sparse description leaves major gaps, making it incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kwargs' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description does not explain what keys or values it expects. This makes the parameter a black box, offering no semantic help to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Parent objects and move to collections' gives a general idea of the tool's function but is vague. It does not specify whether 'parent objects' means setting parent-child relationships or organizing a hierarchy, and 'move to collections' is ambiguous. Compared to sibling tools with clearer names, this lacks precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transform_objects' or 'create_primitive'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Configure HDRI world shader', omitting any details about whether it creates a new shader, modifies an existing one, requires a world shader to be present, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices meaningful content. It does not earn its place as it fails to provide essential details. A description should be appropriately sized to cover key aspects; this is under-specification, not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (configuring an HDRI world shader), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention the output schema (which exists but is not described), nor does it provide any context about the parameter or behavior. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'kwargs' with no type, constraints, or description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'kwargs' accepts (e.g., keys like 'strength', 'rotation'), adding no value beyond the schema. The agent cannot infer correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Configure HDRI world shader' clearly states the verb and resource. It is specific to HDRI world shader configuration, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'setup_lookdev_stage' or 'apply_material_preset'. However, it lacks additional context that would make the purpose fully unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'setup_lookdev_stage' or 'assign_material'. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent with no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals no behavioral details beyond the basic function. It does not mention side effects (e.g., irreversible), stack depth, or error conditions, and no annotations exist to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what is returned. For a simple undo tool, it lacks context about stack depth, confirmation, or limits, making it insufficient for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'kwargs' is undocumented in both the schema and description. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no meaning about what the parameter expects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool undoes the last Grok2Blender operation, matching the name. It is distinct from sibling tools which perform other actions like create, delete, or render.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it can undo multiple steps or if there are prerequisites like having performed an operation first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create cinematic camera' without any details on side effects, required context, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, but this comes at the cost of missing critical information. It fits in one sentence but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description is too minimal regarding parameter semantics and usage context. For a tool with a single untyped parameter, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kwargs' is untyped and has no schema description. The description adds zero information about what keys or values are expected, making the tool unusable based on this description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'create' and resource 'cinematic camera', but is too vague to differentiate from siblings like 'set_active_camera' or 'animate_camera_push_in'. The term 'cinematic camera' is ambiguous without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to disclose effects (e.g., file output, overwriting previous renders), permissions, or idempotency. The description is too sparse to inform agent decisions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. It is front-loaded but lacks structure (no sections, no examples). Every word is present, but the sentence does not earn its place due to missing critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention what is returned or any state changes. The single required parameter is undefined. The tool is incomplete for safe agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kwargs' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'kwargs' expects, leaving the agent unable to construct valid arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Render preview still' states a verb and resource, but is vague. It doesn't specify the context of the preview (e.g., scene, camera) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'render_animation_sequence' or 'take_viewport_screenshot'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not indicate prerequisites, such as requiring a configured render settings or active camera.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the script is generated locally, requires Blender installation, or if it is destructive. The minimal text offers no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one line) but lacks structure and substance. For a tool with 3 parameters and no schema documentation, more information is needed to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an output schema whose content is unknown, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the script does, how parameters interact, or what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. The meaning of 'operation', 'blend_path', and 'params_json' is left entirely ambiguous, forcing the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'standalone bpy 4.2+ script' with the purpose 'offline execution', making it distinct from rendering or animation tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or when not to use it. The description is a single phrase without usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. It fails to mention any behavioral traits: output format, file creation, side effects on scene, or permissions needed. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at three words, with no fluff. Every word earns its place. Could be slightly improved with structure (e.g., front-loading verb), but acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema being present, the description fails to mention what the tool returns. With sibling tools in animation/rendering and a vague parameter, the description is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage for parameter 'kwargs', which is a required catch-all with no type or description. The description adds no meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent completely uninformed about what to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a verb ('Render') and resource ('animation sequence'), clearly indicating the tool's core action. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'render_preview' or specify scope (e.g., which scene/range). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'configure_render_settings' or 'set_timeline_range'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided. The description gives no usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting any details about side effects, permissions, or what happens on failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not structured to highlight key information beyond the basic purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the schema provides no parameter details and there is no annotation, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to cover usage context, parameter expectations, or return value, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'kwargs' lacks type and description; schema coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning about required fields or structure, making it impossible to invoke correctly without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action (assign), resource (material preset), and target (object) clearly. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'apply_material_preset', which likely performs a similar function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_material_preset'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'backup,' implying non-destructive save. It fails to disclose if the backup overwrites existing files, where it is saved, or any side effects. More detail is needed for a safe operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While not verbose, it is under-specified, resulting in a score of 3 as it fits the minimum viable level.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not provided), the description offers no context about the backup process, file naming, directory, or return value. For a tool with one parameter and no param docs, the description is incomplete and fails to aid the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'kwargs' has no schema description or type, and the description adds no meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the agent receives no guidance on what to pass, making the tool effectively unusable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create timestamped blend backup,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose: creating a backup of a Blender file with a timestamp. It distinguishes from sibling tools like undo_last_operation or export functions, though it lacks explicit differentiation. The verb 'create' and resource 'blend backup' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like undo_last_operation or export_alembic_cache. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., file must be saved) or contexts where it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must reveal behavior. It only says 'Initialize project folders' without specifying side effects, idempotency, or overwriting behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It could be expanded with essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the generic parameter and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. It lacks parameter details and output description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain the 'kwargs' parameter. Agents have no information on what keys or values are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Initialize project folders' clearly states the verb (initialize) and resource (project folders). It aligns with the tool name and is distinct from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when or why to use this tool vs alternatives like organize_hierarchy. No context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, or scene modifications. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but overly terse. It lacks structure to convey important details. While not verbose, the brevity harms clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (1 opaque parameter, no annotations, no output schema details), the description is completely inadequate for correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kwargs' has no schema type or description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information, leaving the agent unable to understand required inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a three-point lighting rig. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_area_light_rig', which may serve a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_area_light_rig'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'confirm in safe mode' suggesting safety behavior, but omits other important details like destructiveness, undoability, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (5 words), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the verb but lacks structure and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the opaque parameter and lack of annotations, the description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain output or provide enough context despite the tool's apparent simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kwargs' has no description or schema details. The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, leaving the agent without information on what to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete objects' which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools as no other delete tool exists. However, it does not specify the type of objects (e.g., 3D objects, scenes), which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The mention of 'confirm in safe mode' implies a behavior but does not give explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects (e.g., file saving, overwriting), required permissions, or whether it is a read or write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is too brief to be considered appropriately sized. It lacks necessary detail for a tool with one parameter and no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify output format (though an output schema exists), error conditions, or data scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'kwargs' is undocumented in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export camera JSON' clearly states the verb (export) and resource (camera JSON). It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_alembic_cache and export_render_passes, but does not specify what 'camera JSON' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like export_alembic_cache or export_render_passes. No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Get compact scene graph' without revealing whether it is read-only, the scope of the scene graph (current frame? entire scene?), or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 4 words, which is efficient but omits critical information about parameters and behavior. It is not well-structured for an agent to understand usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description does not clarify what the compact scene graph contains or how to interpret the results. Essential context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fails to explain the single required parameter 'kwargs', which has no type or description in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool definition provides no semantic meaning for this parameter, making it impossible for an agent to know how to populate it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get compact scene graph' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (compact scene graph), which is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_object_details' that provide specific object information. However, 'compact scene graph' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_object_details' or 'get_blender_status'. The description lacks context on typical use cases or when a compact scene graph is preferable to other representations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like whether imported assets are added to the current scene, overwrite existing objects, or require special permissions. It provides none, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, the description is under-specified and lacks critical details. Conciseness is sacrificed for completeness, making it insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a required parameter with no documentation, no annotations, and an output schema not described. The description fails to provide adequate context for a file import operation, missing details on return values or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'kwargs' is completely undocumented in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description. The description adds no insight into what keys or values are expected, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool imports specific 3D formats (glTF, FBX, USD, OBJ). The verb 'import' combined with the format list provides a clear purpose, and no sibling tool duplicates this function, so distinction is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., open project, file path), or typical use cases. The description lacks context for effective selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, if it requires prior setup, or if it has side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (6 words), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but the extreme brevity reduces its usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and a specific purpose, the description lacks context about what a GRS payload is, what the Resolve import process involves, and what the tool expects as input. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter, so the agent has no guidance on how to fill in title, shot_name, or project_dir. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool emits a GRS payload for Resolve import. The verb 'emit' and the resource 'GRS payload' are specific, but the term 'GRS' is not explained, and the description does not differentiate from sibling tools like export_alembic_cache or export_camera_data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or situations where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a write operation ('Create'), but provides no details on side effects, required permissions, or what exactly is set up. The agent cannot assess safety or impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 4 words, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not waste words, but it is too minimal to be effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (setting up a lookdev stage in 3D software), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output, expected parameters, or any behavioral context, and although an output schema exists, it is not utilized.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'kwargs' with no type or description (0% coverage). The description adds zero information about parameters, leaving the agent with no understanding of what arguments to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create lookdev turntable stage' clearly identifies the verb (create) and the specific resource (lookdev turntable stage), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate between sibling tools like 'setup_hdri_environment' or 'create_three_point_lighting', which could also involve stage setup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'suggest', leaving uncertainty about whether the tool modifies the scene or is read-only. No mention of side effects, permissions, or output details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the cost of informativeness. It could be expanded with parameter and usage details while remaining efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'node setup' means, how the parameters affect the result, or what the output contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. The description does not mention any of the three parameters (usd_path, shot_name, alembic_path), leaving their purpose and default values unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool suggests a Fusion node setup for Blender previz import, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are general Blender operations, but could be more precise about what the node setup entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_blender_script' or 'export_usd_stage'. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as permissions required, side effects, or whether the tool is read-only. The agent must infer from the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one undocumented parameter and no annotation, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly. An output schema exists but is not described, and the parameter 'kwargs' is ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'kwargs' with no type or description, and the description provides no additional information about what 'kwargs' should contain. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets 'Blender addon connection status,' specifying a verb and resource. While it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_object_details' or 'get_scene_summary', the purpose is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites or conditions that warrant checking connection status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose what confirmation entails (e.g., whether it executes the operation or just records intent), leaving critical behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with no fluff, but under-informative for a critical tool; conciseness comes at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description provides no context about return values or behavior, leaving the tool's complete functionality unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'operation' has no schema description and the description does not explain what it represents (e.g., name of destructive operation).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'Acknowledge' and the context 'destructive operation for safe-mode gating', distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_safe_mode or delete_objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get object transform and materials,' implying a read operation but not explicitly stating it's non-destructive, nor covering permissions, side effects, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is underspecified. It does not waste words but lacks structure and essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the vague 'kwargs' parameter and no input guidance, the tool is incomplete. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the total lack of parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'kwargs' parameter at all. The agent has no guidance on what keys or values to pass, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves object transform and materials, which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'transform_objects' (modifies transforms) and 'assign_material' (sets materials).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusionary conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action, such as whether it is destructive or how it affects the scene state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), but it sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded but lacks any additional structure or details that could enhance understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, unclear parameter, and existing output schema (not described), the description is inadequate. It does not cover behavioral expectations or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'kwargs', and the description does not explain what kwargs should contain. This leaves the agent without necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set active render camera' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's function. It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_camera' and 'frame_camera_on_object'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as camera existence, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/VisionaryPOV/Grok2Blender'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server