Imports 3D model files (OBJ, FBX, GLTF, GLB, USD, STL, PLY, ABC, BLEND) into Blender using the file path and optional import settings, then returns the names of newly added objects.
导入文件（obj/fbx/gltf/glb/usd/usda/usdc/stl/ply/abc/blend，按后缀识别）。options 透传给导入算子。返回新增对象名。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| format | No | ||
| options | No | ||
| collection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that options are passed through, extension-based recognition, and that it returns the new object name. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or whether existing objects are replaced.
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?
A single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and lists formats compactly. It is appropriately concise.
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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description omits the 'collection' parameter entirely, provides no usage context, and lacks error or side-effect details. Essential information like supported formats and return is present, but overall incomplete.
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 explain all parameters. It mentions 'options' pass-through and implies format detection, but does not explain 'path' or 'collection' parameters at all. Partial compensation only.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'import' and the resource (file), and enumerates supported formats. It distinguishes from export_file and other import-related siblings (import_local_asset, append_from_blend) by listing formats and extension-based detection, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like append_from_blend or import_local_asset. The format list implies usage for those file types, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.