List all lights in a Blender scene, including name, type, position, direction, power, color, and settings. Identify preset lights from setup_lighting.
List every light in the scene: name, kind, place, aim (direction), power, colour and the kind's settings.
preset is true for the bl_light_* lights that setup_lighting makes. Remove lights with delete (names, prefix
or lights).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/not-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: it defines the `preset` flag's meaning (true for bl_light_* lights created by setup_lighting) and points to delete for mutation, which is useful context.
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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing deletion note is slightly tangential to the tool's own function, but it is brief and useful for routing.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does so thoroughly (name, kind, place, direction, power, colour, settings, preset). For a parameterless read tool this is complete.
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?
There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description introduces no parameter information (none exists), and the schema fully covers the empty object, so no compensation is needed.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List every light in the scene') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent immediately knows what it returns. It references related siblings (setup_lighting produces the bl_light_* lights; delete removes lights), which helps distinguish it, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list_* tools.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: it's a scene-inventory listing, and the last clause routes to delete for removal. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or condition distinguishing it from siblings like scene_tree or list_materials, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.