Set the origin of a Blender object by name, selecting from cursor, geometry, bounds, or center of mass. Reposition the pivot point for precise transforms.
设置原点。type: GEOMETRY/CURSOR/CENTER_OF_MASS/CENTER_OF_VOLUME/BOUNDS/GEOMETRY_TO_ORIGIN。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | GEOMETRY |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, object selection requirements, or consequences of different type values. This is insufficient for safe usage.
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, with no redundant words. It states the action and lists the relevant type options directly, adhering to efficient structure.
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 lacks essential contextual details such as return values, error conditions, required prerequisites (e.g., object selection or existence), and the effect of different 'type' values. This makes it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
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 description adds meaning to the 'type' parameter by enumerating possible values, but it does not describe what each value does or what the 'name' parameter refers to beyond being an identifier. Schema coverage is low, so the description partially compensates.
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 action 'set origin' and identifies the object via the 'name' parameter. The list of possible 'type' values adds specificity, though the meaning of each type (e.g., GEOMETRY_TO_ORIGIN) is not explained. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like set_transform.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists valid type values but does not explain their semantic differences or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.