BlenderMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('Returns the screenshot as an Image') but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific Blender state or permissions, potential performance impacts, or error conditions (e.g., if no viewport is active).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured parameter explanation and return statement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics adequately. However, given the lack of annotations and the tool's dependency on Blender's state, it should ideally mention prerequisites or limitations to be fully complete for safe agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'max_size' with its purpose ('Maximum size in pixels for the largest dimension') and default value (800), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type and title. However, it doesn't explain constraints like minimum/maximum values or how scaling affects quality.

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 specific action ('Capture a screenshot') and the target resource ('current Blender 3D viewport'), using a precise verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_scene_info' or 'get_object_info' by focusing on visual capture rather than data retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring Blender to be running), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the purpose statement.

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