Skip to main content
Glama
full-aigc-plugins

partme_blender

by full-aigc-plugins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

asset.fetch_generated

blender_asset_fetch_generated
Destructive

Fetch a generated asset into Blender with user approval and transaction-safe retry. Ensures asset retrieval respects session policy and maintains scene integrity.

Instructions

PartMe Blender Harness command asset.fetch_generated. Risk: gated; maturity: L1. Requires local user approval in Blender: a client cannot approve its own request, and it retries the same request id after the user approves it. Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
paramsNoProvider-specific parameters validated by the selected action
filenameNo
_requestIdNoStable request id for replay safety
providerIdYes
_authorizationNoAction-bound Harness authorization claim
_transactionIdYesHarness milestone transaction id
_expectedSceneRevisionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / params
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Provider-specific parameters validated by the selected action",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "providerId",
-  "url",
-  "_transactionId"
-]New value: +[
+  "providerId",
+  "_transactionId"
+]
  2. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses gated risk, local human approval, client self-approval prohibition, retry of the same request id, and per-request argument/session checks. This complements the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations and does not contradict them.

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 compact and front-loads command identity and risk before the approval/retry workflow. It avoids filler, though the opening is mainly a restatement of the tool name and the final requirements sentence is terse.

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 gated, possibly destructive asset-fetch command with eight parameters and a nested output, the description omits the core semantics of what is fetched, how the asset is generated, and how url/params/filename relate to the operation. The approval/retry workflow is covered well, but the missing purpose and parameter guidance leave the description incomplete.

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?

The description only indirectly references a request id and provides no explanation for parameters such as url, filename, providerId, or _expectedSceneRevision. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving an agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description only identifies the tool as 'PartMe Blender Harness command asset.fetch_generated' and adds risk/maturity metadata; it does not state in plain language what fetching a generated asset entails. There is no explicit verb/resource description and no differentiation from sibling tools such as blender_asset_fetch_url or blender_asset_polypizza_download.

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 operational workflow constraints—local user approval is required, a client cannot approve its own request, and the same request id is retried after approval—but does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives. No when/when-not guidance or sibling comparison is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools