Add a light to a Blender scene by specifying type (POINT, SUN, SPOT, AREA), color, energy, and location.
Create a light. Types: POINT, SUN, SPOT, AREA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| type | No | POINT | |
| color | No | ||
| energy | No | ||
| location | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does 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 the action without mentioning side effects, required context, or return behavior. It does not indicate whether creating a light modifies the scene immediately, whether it is reversible, or what the output schema contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is front-loaded with the action and key type information. It contains no filler and is appropriately brief. The brevity is a strength, though it comes at the cost of missing critical details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. While an output schema exists, the description does not explain parameter semantics, behavioral effects, or usage context. An agent would be left guessing about how to correctly invoke the tool without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for the 'type' parameter by listing valid values (POINT, SUN, SPOT, AREA). The other four parameters (name, color, energy, location) are left completely unexplained, with no format, constraints, or default behaviors described. This is insufficient for a tool with five parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create a light' and enumerates the valid types (POINT, SUN, SPOT, AREA). This differentiates it from other creation tools like create_camera or create_object, and the type list adds specificity. Although it doesn't explicitly contrast with create_light_rig, the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_light_rig, set_light_property, or create_hdri_world. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.