Import assets from a local Blender library by specifying library, name, and optional file path. Supports linking or appending data blocks for reuse across projects.
从本地资产库导入数据块（file 可指定库内 .blend 相对路径）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | ||
| link | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | objects | |
| library | 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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'import', implying scene modification, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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, front-loading the primary purpose. It is efficient and avoids verbosity, but its brevity contributes to the overall incompleteness.
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 5 parameters, 2 required, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of most parameters, the expected behavior, or any return values, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
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. It only explains the 'file' parameter as a .blend relative path, leaving 'library', 'name', 'type', and 'link' entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.
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 verb 'import' and resource 'data blocks from the local asset library', and even clarifies the file parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like import_file or append_from_blend, though the local asset library context implies a distinct 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_file, append_from_blend, or search_local_assets. The description lacks any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.