Create a complete PBR material from texture map paths for base color, roughness, metallic, normal, AO, and height, with optional assignment to a Blender object.
用一组贴图路径一次建好 PBR 材质。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ao | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| height | No | ||
| normal | No | ||
| metallic | No | ||
| assign_to | No | ||
| roughness | No | ||
| base_color | 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. It does not disclose whether the material is assigned to an object (despite the assign_to parameter), whether it overwrites an existing material, or what happens with missing texture maps. As a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral detail 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?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it under-specifies essential information. It front-loads the main purpose but omits parameter details and behavior, making it more under-specified than concisely complete.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer parameter semantics, side effects, or return values, making it nearly impossible to use correctly without additional documentation.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'a set of texture paths' generically. It fails to explain that each parameter (base_color, normal, etc.) is a file path and what assign_to controls. This is inadequate for 8 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 states a clear verb ('create') and resource ('PBR material'), and implies the key input (texture paths). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_material (which may create generic materials) and set_principled_inputs (which modifies existing), though it could be more explicit about the specific maps it handles.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_material, assign_material, or material_from_texture_folder. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., having texture files ready) or mention scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.