List all lights in a Blender scene with names, types, positions, aim, power, colour, and settings. Audit preset and custom lights before removal.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses the full field set returned and explains the `preset` flag's provenance (bl_light_* lights created by setup_lighting), which is real behavioral context. It does not state explicitly that the operation is non-mutating, though 'List' strongly implies it.
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, front-loaded with the returned-field inventory before the preset note. The trailing sentence about removing lights is useful routing but slightly drifts from the tool's own behavior.
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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and with no annotations it clarifies the preset semantics. Nothing essential for calling a zero-parameter listing tool is missing, though a note on ordering/scene scope would make it fully 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. The mention of 'names, prefix or lights' refers to the sibling delete tool's arguments rather than this tool's inputs.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List every light in the scene') and enumerates exactly what is returned (name, kind, place, aim/direction, power, colour, kind settings, preset flag). This lets an agent separate it from add_light, setup_lighting, set_world and delete without opening any schema.
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?
The description implies a read/inspect use case and points to `delete` (with names, prefix or lights) for removal, which gives one clear when-not signal. It never says when to prefer this over sibling inspectors like scene_tree or list_materials, so guidance is only partially covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.