Retrieve all modifiers applied to a Blender object, including their types and settings, to inspect or verify the modifier stack.
List all modifiers on an object with their type and settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety, but it adds 'with their type and settings' to set expectations about return content. It does not discuss edge cases like missing objects or ordering, but for a read-only list with annotations present this is adequate.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every part ('List', 'all', 'on an object', 'with their type and settings') adds information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only listing with an output schema present, the description covers the core call intent. It is slightly thin on parameter format, but the tool's simplicity and annotations make it sufficiently complete.
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 has a single 'object' string with no description (0% coverage). The description ties the parameter to the object containing the modifiers but does not clarify the expected identifier format (name, ID, path), leaving some ambiguity; however, with one parameter its role is mostly 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List all modifiers on an object'), names output fields ('type and settings'), and is clearly distinct from sibling modifier mutation tools like add_modifier or remove_modifier.
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 implies usage when one needs to inspect modifiers but doesn't explicitly differentiate from alternatives such as get_geonodes_modifier or set_modifier_property. It provides no when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.