List every object in the current Blender scene, optionally filtered by type (mesh, camera, light, empty) to locate specific items for automation.
List all objects in the scene. Optionally filter by type (MESH, CAMERA, LIGHT, EMPTY, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | 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?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming a non-destructive operation. It does not add extra behavioral details beyond the annotation, but given the annotation's presence, this is acceptable. No contradictions or misleading claims are present.
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 concise, using only two sentences to convey the core functionality and the optional filter. The key action is front-loaded, and there is no wasted verbiage. It is an appropriate length for a simple listing tool.
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 tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential information: what it does, the optional filter, and its non-destructive nature (via annotation). No additional details such as return format are needed since the output schema exists. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?
Although the schema provides no description for the 'type' parameter, the tool description compensates by explaining its purpose ('filter by type') and giving concrete examples (MESH, CAMERA, LIGHT, EMPTY). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, making the parameter's usage clear.
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 tool's purpose: listing all objects in the scene, with an optional filter by type. The verb 'list' and resource 'objects' are specific, and the optional filter distinguishes it from related tools like find_objects. This is unambiguous and easily understood by an agent.
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 for enumeration and filtering by type, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like find_objects. There is no mention of exclusions or specific conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.