Adds animation constraints like IK, copy rotation, or track-to to a specified bone in Blender. Define target object and subtarget bone to control rig behavior.
给骨骼加约束（IK/COPY_ROTATION/COPY_LOCATION/TRACK_TO/DAMPED_TRACK/LIMIT_ROTATION/STRETCH_TO…）。settings 里 target 给对象名、subtarget 给骨骼名。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bone | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| armature | Yes | ||
| settings | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for revealing side effects, error conditions, or requirements. It fails to mention any potential failures, mutations beyond the constraint addition, or dependencies like the bone/armature existing.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose with examples, and the second clarifies key settings. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary information.
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 presence of 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It lacks details about constraint types, how to set them, or any side effects, making it incomplete for agents needing robust execution context.
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 provides no descriptions. The description explains only 'target' and 'subtarget' within settings, leaving 'type', 'armature', and 'bone' undefined (though type is partially exemplified). This gives partial but incomplete parameter coverage.
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: adding a constraint to a bone, and provides example constraint types. It identifies the resource (bone) and the operation (add constraint), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core purpose.
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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions for its use. It provides some configuration guidance (target and subtarget) but no situational context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.