Add a specified modifier to multiple Blender objects at once. Provide object names, modifier type, and optional settings to apply the same modification across your scene.
批量加修改器。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| objects | Yes | ||
| settings | No |
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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral hint is the word 'batch', but nothing explains whether existing modifiers are replaced, whether the operation is destructive, what the 'settings' parameter affects, or what the return value is. For a mutating batch operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
While the text is short, this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. A one-sentence description that merely echoes the tool name does not earn its place; it provides no structural value in front-loading critical decisions.
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?
Completely inadequate for a batch mutation tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Missing critical information: valid modifier type values, object selection semantics, settings structure, and any behavioral caveats. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this definition alone.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are three undocumented parameters. The description does not explain what 'type' refers to (which modifier types are valid), what 'objects' can be (array, object, or string), or how 'settings' should be structured. The description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 '批量加修改器' (batch add modifiers) simply restates the tool's name. It identifies the action (add) and resource (modifiers) but adds no specification about what kinds of modifiers, what objects, or how it differs from single-add or apply operations. It borders on tautology since the name already conveys the same information.
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 whatsoever about when to use this tool versus its siblings like add_modifier (single add), apply_modifier, set_modifier, or the other batch_* operations. An agent has no way to know whether to reach for batch_add_modifier or add_modifier for a given task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.