Creates a parent-child link between two Blender objects, making the child inherit the parent's movement, rotation, and scale.
Set parent-child relationship between objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| child | Yes | ||
| parent | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that a parenting relationship is set, but it does not disclose whether existing parents are replaced, whether transforms are affected, or what side effects occur.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the operation, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this is underspecified. An agent still lacks key details about how to identify objects, what the operation changes, and what the output represents, despite an output schema existing.
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 needed to compensate for the child and parent parameters. It only says 'objects,' offering minimal added meaning beyond the raw parameter names and failing to clarify whether these are object IDs, names, or paths.
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 ('set') and resource ('parent-child relationship between objects'), making the core operation clear. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from the sibling clear_parent as the inverse operation, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like parent_mesh_to_armature or clear_parent. The description implies general object parenting but does not state when this is the appropriate call or when a more specialized sibling should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.