Assign physics properties to Blender objects by specifying object, physics type, property, and value, such as setting rigid body mass to 5.0.
Set a physics property. E.g., type=RIGID_BODY, property=mass, value=5.0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| property | 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 only annotation is idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond that—it doesn't disclose whether it modifies existing physics or creates new, whether it invalidates baked simulations, or what error conditions might occur. With minimal annotations, the description carries the burden but fails to provide additional transparency.
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 sentence with an example, which is appropriately concise. It front-loads the action and uses the example to illustrate usage efficiently. There is no wasted words, and the structure is clear.
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 4 parameters, no enums, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It does not mention that physics must be set up first, how to discover valid properties for a given type, or any restrictions on values. The output schema exists but the description doesn't leverage it. An agent would struggle to use this correctly without external knowledge.
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. The example clarifies type, property, and value with a concrete instance (RIGID_BODY, mass, 5.0), but does not explain the 'object' parameter or enumerate valid property names per type. This provides some semantic value but leaves agents guessing about allowed values and parameter interplay.
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 states a clear verb 'Set' and resource 'physics property', and the example (type=RIGID_BODY, property=mass, value=5.0) helps distinguish it from other set_property tools for materials, lights, etc. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'type' refers to (e.g., physics simulation type) and whether it requires an existing physics object, so it's not fully specific.
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 batch_set_property or other set_*_property tools. No prerequisites are mentioned, such as needing to add physics first (add_physics) or setting up a world. The description only gives an example without any contextual selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.