Load a .blend file into Blender to replace the current scene. Confirm the action to prevent accidental overwrites.
Load a .blend file. This replaces the current scene — confirm to proceed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| filepath | 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?
The destructiveHint annotation is supplemented by the description's explicit statement that the tool 'replaces the current scene' and that confirmation is required. This adds context about what gets destroyed and the confirm gate, which goes beyond the mere annotation flag.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical side effect (replacing the scene) is stated immediately. Every word earns its place.
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 covers the essential facts for a simple load operation, but it omits potential side effects like unsaved changes being discarded, and it does not mention what the tool returns (though an output schema exists). For a destructive operation, a bit more cautionary detail would be beneficial.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It only touches on 'confirm' ('confirm to proceed') but does not clarify the filepath parameter's format, meaning, or requirements. This leaves the agent underinformed about a required parameter.
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?
Description clearly states the action: 'Load a .blend file' and immediately distinguishes it from import/export tools by noting it 'replaces the current scene.' This makes the tool's specific purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like import_file or export_file.
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: if you want to load a .blend and replace the current scene, use this tool. It also implicitly warns against use if preservation of the current scene is desired. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like import_file, so the guidance is present but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.