Identify bone constraint problems in Blender: missing targets, nonexistent subtargets, overlong IK chains, disabled constraints, or zero influence. Resolve rigging issues by pinpointing each failing constraint.
列出骨骼约束问题：目标缺失、subtarget 不存在、IK 链过长、被禁用、influence 为 0。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| armature | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'list' strongly indicates a read-only operation, and the description enumerates what checks are performed. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a listing tool. Without annotations, it carries this information well.
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 extremely concise, using a single sentence to list all relevant constraint issues. No unnecessary words or redundant details, making it highly efficient.
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?
The description specifies exactly what issues are detected, providing enough context for the agent to understand the tool's purpose. It lacks details on the output format (e.g., structure of the returned list), but this is acceptable given the simple listing nature.
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?
The sole parameter 'armature' is not described in the schema, but the description's mention of bone constraints implies it refers to the armature object. This adds necessary context, though it does not clarify the expected format (e.g., name, object reference).
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 tool lists bone constraint issues, specifying the exact types (missing target, nonexistent subtarget, overlong IK chain, disabled, zero influence). This distinct purpose separates it from sibling tools like list_bones or add_bone_constraint.
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 implies usage as a diagnostic tool for identifying constraint problems, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the decision to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.