Divide a mesh into separate objects based on loose parts, materials, or selected geometry, enabling targeted editing and organization within Blender.
Separate mesh into multiple objects. Modes: LOOSE (by loose parts), MATERIAL (by material), SELECTED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | LOOSE | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not state whether the original object is modified, destroyed, or left untouched. It also omits prerequisites such as requiring an active selection or edit mode for the SELECTED mode, which is important for a mutating operation.
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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by a concise mode breakdown. Every piece of text adds information without repetition or filler.
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 is simple with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it remains incomplete because it does not disclose side effects or mode-specific prerequisites, which an agent would need to invoke it correctly and safely.
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 does add meaning by enumerating and explaining the three mode values, but it does not clarify the 'object' parameter's expected format or identifier. The compensation is partial.
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 a specific verb ('Separate') and resource ('mesh'), and clearly states the outcome ('into multiple objects'). The mode list makes the operation's scope concrete and distinguishes it from siblings like join_meshes.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a mesh must be split into multiple objects. It also describes the meaning of each mode, which acts as usage guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.