Add a bone to an existing armature in Blender, defining its head and tail positions with optional roll, parent, and connection settings.
添加一根骨骼。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| head | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| roll | No | ||
| tail | Yes | ||
| parent | No | ||
| connect | No | ||
| armature | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any side effects, success/failure conditions, or interaction with the scene. With no annotations, the burden falls on the description, which provides nothing beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase '添加一根骨骼' (Add a bone). It is efficiently front-loaded with no redundant information, though it may be too terse to be fully useful.
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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It provides no context on prerequisites, return values, or how the bone is added in relation to the armature.
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 schema lists 7 parameters (head, tail, name, roll, parent, connect, armature) but the description does not explain any of them. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds no semantic meaning to the parameters.
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 clearly states the action (add) and resource (bone), matching the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_bone and set_bone, but lacks detail on the armature context.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_bones or set_bone. The description does not mention any conditions or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.