Update a constraint's property, such as target, influence, or axis, on a Blender object to fine-tune its behavior.
Set a constraint property. Common: target, subtarget, influence, axis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bone | No | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| property | Yes | ||
| constraint | 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 annotations only provide idempotentHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the mutation implied by 'Set.' It does not disclose identifier semantics, error behavior, or effects. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the description carries almost no behavioral burden.
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 one compact sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, followed by a concise, useful example list. It is appropriately brief, though it could earn a 5 by adding a sentence of routing guidance without bloating.
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 generic setter with zero schema parameter coverage and a specialized sibling like set_constraint_influence, the description is too thin for an agent to reliably choose the tool and construct a correct call. An output schema exists, so return values are not the gap; parameter semantics and tool routing are.
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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate, but it only lists example values for the 'property' parameter. It does not explain how to identify 'object' or 'constraint', nor what formats 'value' or optional 'bone' expect.
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 identifies the action ('Set') and the resource ('a constraint property'), and the examples (target, subtarget, influence, axis) add useful specificity. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling set_constraint_influence, which also deals with influence, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this generic setter versus alternatives like set_constraint_influence, add_constraint, or remove_constraint. The 'Common:' list implies some usage context, but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.