Retrieve vertex positions from a Blender object, optionally filtered by a vertex group, with a limit to avoid oversized responses.
Get vertex positions. Optionally filter by vertex group. Limited to avoid huge payloads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| object | Yes |
| 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 include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds 'Limited to avoid huge payloads', which indicates a pagination or limit behavior. However, it does not explain what happens when the limit is exceeded or how the limit interacts with filtering, so additional context is minimal but not contradictory.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids redundancy and unnecessary detail. The brevity is appropriate, though it could afford a bit more explanation of the object parameter without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with one required, and schema coverage is 0%, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to specify the object, what the group filtering expects, or the effect of the limit. While an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the parameter semantics are under-specified. The tool is a read operation, but the lack of parameter documentation leaves the agent guessing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'vertex group' (mapping to group) and 'Limited' (mapping to limit), but does not explain the required 'object' parameter (e.g., how to specify the object). It also does not clarify the default limit or the exact format of group names. The description adds only partial semantics for two of three parameters, leaving a significant gap.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'vertex positions', and optionally filtering by vertex group. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_vertices (which writes) and get_vertex_groups (which lists groups). The phrase 'Limited to avoid huge payloads' hints at the limit parameter, adding purpose clarity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_vertex_groups or get_mesh_info. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context. The optional filtering is mentioned but not framed against other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.