Creates Blender construction materials such as concrete, brick, wood, glass, steel, and tile, letting users set a custom RGB color for each material.
Tao vat lieu xay dung.
loai co san: be_tong, gach, tuong_son, kinh, go, thep, ngoi, gach_lat, da, nhom. Truyen mau [r, g, b] trong khoang 0 den 1 de doi mau rieng.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mau | No | ||
| ten | Yes | ||
| loai | No | be_tong |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 reveals the valid 'loai' values and the 'mau' color format/range, but says nothing about what creation does (persistence, duplicate-name handling, idempotency) or any side effects — significant gaps for a creation 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?
Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The type list is a slightly unwieldy run-on but every item earns its place as a valid input value.
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, 3 params and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the type enum and color format but leaves the required 'ten' semantics and the creation behavior unexplained. Adequate for calling the tool, incomplete for understanding its effects.
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 real meaning: the ten valid 'loai' values and the 'mau' format '[r,g,b] trong khoang 0 den 1'. It says nothing about 'ten', though that is self-evident as the material name.
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 specific verb and resource ('Tạo vật liệu xây dựng' = create construction material), which is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with any sibling (e.g. gan_vat_lieu, which assigns rather than creates), but no sibling directly overlaps, so the purpose is still distinguishable.
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 such as gan_vat_lieu, nor any prerequisites (e.g. must a project/model exist first). It only enumerates valid material types, which is value semantics rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.