Duplicate an object in the Blender scene and optionally assign a new name via MCP, allowing AI assistants to create copies without rebuilding the object manually.
Duplicate an object in the Blender scene. Optionally provide a new name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| new_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey side effects. It only says 'duplicate' without explaining what happens to the original, whether the duplicate is selected, or what default name is used when new_name is omitted. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded Alert. No fluff or repetition of the tool name.
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 fails to explain the role of the required 'name' parameteraine, the naming behavior when 'new_name' is omitted, or any effects (e.g., selection, undo stack). An agent would have to infer the source object naming convention from other tools or trial.
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 only minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that a new name is optional. It does not explain that `name` identifies the source object to duplicate or how duplicate names are handled. With 0% schema coverage, this leaves a required parameter semantically ambiguous.
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?
States a specific action ('duplicate') and resource ('an object in the Blender scene'), plus the optional naming behavior. It is clearly distinct from siblings like create/delete, though it does not explicitly state that 'name' identifies the source object.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_object_create or blender_object_delete, nor any prerequisites or selection requirements. The context of use is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.