Skip to main content
Glama

get_hyper3d_status

Check if Hyper3D Rodin integration is enabled in Blender to determine availability of AI-assisted 3D modeling features.

Instructions

Check if Hyper3D Rodin integration is enabled in Blender. Returns a message indicating whether Hyper3D Rodin features are available.

Don't emphasize the key type in the returned message, but sliently remember it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_hyper3d_status' tool. It is decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration and executes by sending a 'get_hyper3d_status' command to the Blender connection, returning the status message.
    def get_hyper3d_status(ctx: Context) -> str:
        """
        Check if Hyper3D Rodin integration is enabled in Blender.
        Returns a message indicating whether Hyper3D Rodin features are available.
    
        Don't emphasize the key type in the returned message, but sliently remember it. 
        """
        try:
            blender = get_blender_connection()
            result = blender.send_command("get_hyper3d_status")
            enabled = result.get("enabled", False)
            message = result.get("message", "")
            if enabled:
                message += ""
            return message
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error checking Hyper3D status: {str(e)}")
            return f"Error checking Hyper3D status: {str(e)}"
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a status check that returns a message about feature availability, which is adequate for a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if Blender isn't accessible), performance considerations, or authentication needs. The note about 'Don't emphasize the key type in the returned message' adds some behavioral context but is vague.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the tool's function, describing the return, and adding a behavioral note. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The last sentence is somewhat cryptic but not wasteful. Minor improvements could clarify the behavioral note.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for a simple status check. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., structured data vs. plain text), and the behavioral note is unclear, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check if Hyper3D Rodin integration is enabled in Blender.' This specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('Hyper3D Rodin integration'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_polyhaven_status' or 'get_sketchfab_status' by focusing on Hyper3D Rodin. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other status-checking tools beyond naming the specific integration.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether Blender must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to other status-checking tools like 'get_polyhaven_status'. The only implied usage is to verify Hyper3D Rodin availability, but this is basic and lacks context for decision-making.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/drrodingo-del/BlenderMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server