Skip to main content
Glama
full-aigc-plugins

partme_blender

by full-aigc-plugins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

curve.create

blender_curve_create

Create a Blender curve from given 3D points, controlling spline type, handle type, bevel depth, resolution, and cyclic behavior.

Instructions

PartMe Blender Harness command curve.create. Risk: standard; maturity: L3. Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
cyclicNo
pointsYes
_requestIdNoStable request id for replay safety
bevelDepthNo
handleTypeNo
resolutionNo
splineTypeNo
_authorizationNoAction-bound Harness authorization claim
_transactionIdYesHarness milestone transaction id
bevelResolutionNo
_expectedSceneRevisionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / points / items
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Three finite numbers; rotation uses radians",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 3,
+  "minItems": 3,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / resolution / description
      Removed value: -"Official uploader resolution label; default 720p"
    • addedInput schema / properties / resolution / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / resolution / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +"integer"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already signal this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds operational context like 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply', which is slightly useful, but it does not disclose what happens to the scene or objects, what dependencies exist, or what the side effects of creating a curve are.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is short, but shortness is not conciseness when the sentences only restate the command and generic runtime policy. The first sentence is redundant with the command name, and the second is boilerplate. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Despite having 12 parameters, an output schema, and a large sibling list, the description provides almost no actionable context. It does not state the tool's purpose, behavior, preconditions, side effects, or relationship to similar curve and object tools. An agent cannot confidently invoke or validate this tool based on the definition.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining key parameters such as name, points, splineType, handleType, and bevelDepth. It does not mention a single parameter or provide any guidance on how to construct valid arguments. The sparse schema-level descriptions are insufficient, and the description adds no semantic value.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description simply restates the command name as 'PartMe Blender Harness command `curve.create`' without stating what the tool does. It is a tautology: no verb, resource, or effect is described. An agent cannot tell from the description that this creates a curve, especially with siblings like blender_object_create_curve and blender_curve_configure nearby.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_object_create_curve or blender_curve_configure. The description only mentions generic risk and policy requirements, which do not help an agent choose or sequence this tool correctly.

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