List all objects in the current Blender scene, optionally filtering to only items created by this addon, to inspect model contents before editing.
Liet ke cac doi tuong dang co trong canh Blender.
chi_cua_addon: chi liet ke nhung thu bo cong cu nay dung ra.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gioi_han | No | ||
| chi_cua_addon | No |
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, yet it reveals almost nothing behavioral: it does not say the result is truncated (gioi_han default 100), whether output is paginated, or what the listing is scoped to by default. For a no-annotation tool this is a significant gap.
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 short lines with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the fragmentary second line would read better as part of a single coherent statement.
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 0% schema coverage, the description should do more: the default limit of 100 and the resulting truncation behavior are unmentioned, leaving the agent unable to predict what it will get back.
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% for 2 parameters. The description explains only chi_cua_addon (addon-created objects only) and says nothing about gioi_han, so half the parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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+resource: listing objects present in the Blender scene. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as xem_doi_tuong (view object), so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which listing tool applies when.
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 xem_doi_tuong, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The scoping note about chi_cua_addon is a filter explanation, not a when-to-use rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.