blender-fx-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

render_video

Render the active Blender scene into an MP4 video. Set frame range, resolution, fps, and quality to create a preview render.

Instructions

Render the whole scene to an mp4 video. 장면 전체를 mp4 로 렌더한다. 72프레임 720p 기준 1~3분.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "render_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`fps`	No
`name`	No
`width`	No
`height`	No
`quality`	No	smoke
`frame_end`	No
`frame_start`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context: output format is mp4, it renders the whole scene, and a 72-frame 720p render takes roughly 1–3 minutes. However, it does not disclose blocking behavior, output file location/overwrite behavior, or how frame range parameters interact with 'whole scene'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and the key statement is front-loaded. However, the Korean sentence largely duplicates the English sentence, so not every line earns its place. The performance benchmark does add value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a render tool with 7 optional parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It leaves frame-range semantics, quality options, output naming/location, and the relationship to render_preview unspecified. The presence of an output schema covers return values, not invocation guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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, but it gives no parameter-level explanation. Names like fps, width, and height are somewhat self-explanatory, but quality='smoke', frame_start=0, frame_end=0, and name are ambiguous without additional context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation: render the whole scene to an mp4 video. It is specific about the verb, resource, and output format. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling render_preview, though 'whole scene' offers a partial differentiator.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus render_preview or other alternatives. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no context about choosing this tool over a preview or snapshot render are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.