Lists Blender scene objects with type, collection, parent, world size, minimum corner, and triangle count, showing up to a set limit for quick scene inspection.
Every object with type, collection, parent (by indent), world size, world minimum corner and triangle count.
Shows the first limit objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
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 full burden. It does disclose the returned fields and the truncation behavior ('Shows the first `limit` objects'), which is useful, but it says nothing about ordering, whether it covers the entire scene, or the read-only nature of the call.
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 no filler, and the field list is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the dense noun-phrase field list would read better with an explicit lead verb.
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, no annotations, and one parameter, the description does list the returned fields, which partly compensates. However it omits ordering/traversal semantics and any context for when this listing is the right tool, leaving the definition only minimally 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 single `limit` parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Shows the first `limit` objects' explains that limit truncates the listing to the first N objects, which adds real meaning beyond the bare integer type and default.
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 enumerates the fields returned (type, collection, parent, size, triangle count) which implies a scene-hierarchy listing, but never states the action with a verb and does not distinguish this from siblings like mesh_info, measure, or list_materials. The reader must infer that this dumps the whole scene tree rather than inspecting one object.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With many inspection siblings (mesh_info, measure, list_bones, list_materials, check_mesh), the description gives no signal for choosing scene_tree over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.