Render animation frames in Blender, saving to the specified output path with optional start and end frame controls.
渲染帧序列。output_path 可含 #### 帧号占位（如 /tmp/out/frame_####.png）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame_end | No | ||
| frame_start | No | ||
| output_path | 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 does disclose one useful trait: the #### frame-number placeholder behavior in output_path. But it doesn't mention blocking/time-consuming nature, what null frame_start/frame_end means, error behavior, or the return format — significant gaps for a rendering operation.
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 appropriately brief and front-loads the core purpose, with the placeholder detail placed after. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness — there is room to add frame-range semantics without bloating it.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is the only documentation for a tool that likely performs a long-running render. Missing details include null-handling for frame_start/frame_end, whether rendering is blocking, and what output/status is returned. This is 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 explains output_path's #### placeholder meaningfully beyond the schema. However, frame_start and frame_end are entirely undocumented — the agent cannot infer whether null means 'use current scene frame range' or how start/end are interpreted.
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 specific action and resource: '渲染帧序列' (render frame sequence). This distinguishes it from the sibling render_image (single image) and viewport_screenshot. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, which would fully cement differentiation.
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 vs alternatives like render_image or set_frame_range. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a set frame range or animation) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.