Set render resolution and engine for Blender building models. Choose EEVEE for speed or Cycles for quality; invalid names return valid options.
Dat do phan giai va engine render.
engine thuong dung: BLENDER_EEVEE_NEXT cho nhanh, CYCLES cho dep. Ten engine khac nhau giua cac ban Blender, neu sai thi thong bao loi se liet ke cac ten hop le.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cao | No | ||
| rong | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| mau_anh | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that engine names vary across Blender versions and that an invalid name produces an error listing valid names — genuine behavioral context. It does not say whether the setting persists beyond the session or applies to subsequent renders, which matters for a configuration-mutation tool.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then engine guidance, then the error caveat. No filler, though the line breaks are a bit fragmented.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description should do more. It leaves 'mau_anh' unexplained, does not state persistence semantics, and gives no indication of what a successful call returns or changes.
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 coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It covers resolution (do phan giai) and engine conceptually but never maps them to 'cao'/'rong' or explains defaults, and 'mau_anh' (color management) is entirely unaddressed.
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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: set resolution and render engine. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from render_anh (which actually renders), but the description never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.
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?
It gives real decision guidance on engine choice (BLENDER_EEVEE_NEXT for speed, CYCLES for quality), which is more than implied usage. It never says when this tool should be called relative to render_anh or whether it must precede rendering, so there is no explicit when/when-not framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.