Import or link datablocks like objects, materials, collections, node groups, or actions from a .blend file by specifying path, datablock type, and name.
从 .blend 追加/链接一个数据块（objects/materials/collections/node_groups/actions/…）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| datablock | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether new objects are created, whether the operation is destructive, or how the 'link' parameter affects behavior). It only states the basic action without detailing consequences.
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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.
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?
For a tool with four parameters, the description is highly incomplete. It omits any information about required inputs, the meaning of the 'link' flag, or the outcome of the operation, leaving the agent to guess how to invoke it correctly.
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?
None of the four parameters (path, datablock, name, link) are explained in the description or schema. The description gives no hints about expected values, formats, or how the parameters interact.
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 (append/link) and the resource (data block from a .blend file), and lists common data block types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like import_file by focusing on appending/linking specific data blocks, though it could be more explicit about the target scene 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_file, import_local_asset, or search_local_assets. The description does not mention any conditions or recommended usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.