Retrieve keyframes from an object in Blender, optionally filtering by animation property like location or rotation, to inspect or export animation data.
Get keyframes on an object, optionally filtered to a specific data_path (e.g., 'location', 'rotation_euler').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object | Yes | ||
| data_path | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read-only operation with no contradiction. It adds that data_path is optional and scopes the keyframes returned, but it does not mention edge cases such as invalid data_path values or empty results. Given the read-only annotation, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then provides the optional filter with useful examples. There is no filler and every phrase contributes to correct invocation.
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 tool has only two simple parameters, the output schema covers return-value structure, and the annotation covers the read-only safety profile. The description supplies the key filtering semantics, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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 no property descriptions, so the description's concrete data_path examples add real meaning beyond the raw schema. The object parameter is not detailed beyond 'on an object', but its name and required status make the intended value reasonably inferable.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'keyframes on an object' and clarifies the optional data_path filter with concrete examples like 'location' and 'rotation_euler'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutators such as set_keyframe, set_keyframes, and delete_keyframe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the retrieval context clear and explains the optional filtering condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the get-versus-set/delete distinction among siblings is strongly implied and unlikely to mislead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.