blender-fx-mcp

by choisam4u-creator

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

save_blend

Export the current scene to a .blend file you can open in Blender, preserving all FX and physics settings.

Instructions

Save the scene as a .blend file you can open in Blender yourself. 현재 장면을 .blend 로 저장한다.

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": "save_blend"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No		fx_scene

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

Behavior2/5

Does 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 mentions that it saves a .blend file, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, where the file is written, whether it requires a running Blender instance, or any side effects on the scene. This is a significant gap for a save operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two short sentences (English and Korean) that front-load the primary purpose. It is efficient, though the bilingual repetition adds minor redundancy. No unnecessary detail is present.

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?

Given no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics and behavioral details such as file overwrite behavior and output location. Even with an output schema present, the missing parameter and behavior information leaves the agent under-informed for a save operation.

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

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines a single parameter 'name' with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. The agent cannot infer that 'name' is likely the filename, as no hint is provided. The description adds zero value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb 'save' and resource 'scene as a .blend file', and adds 'you can open in Blender yourself' which distinguishes it from export_model (which likely produces non-native formats) and snapshot (likely an image). This is clear and well-differentiated.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_model, snapshot, or render_video. There is no mention of contexts where saving as .blend is preferable or where other tools are more appropriate.

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