Skip to main content
Glama
full-aigc-plugins

partme_blender

by full-aigc-plugins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

grease_pencil.add_stroke

blender_grease_pencil_add_stroke

Add a Grease Pencil stroke to a specified layer and frame, defining points, cyclic behavior, and material. Enables recoverable Blender edits through transaction-based safety.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
frameYes
layerYes
cyclicNo
pointsYes
objectIdNo
_requestIdNoStable request id for replay safety
materialIndexNo
_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. Changed1 schema field 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"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The annotations provide no read-only, idempotent, or destructive hints, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation mutates the scene by adding a stroke, what geometry is expected, or any side effects. 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' is operational metadata, not behavioral transparency.

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 this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single command-identifier sentence and boilerplate requirements sentence carry no semantic content about the tool's behavior.

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?

With 11 parameters, low schema coverage, and no behavioral or usage explanation, the description is far from sufficient for correct selection and invocation. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the absence of parameter semantics and tool-specific context.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 27% and the description names none of the 11 parameters. It does not clarify required fields, coordinate semantics, or how frame/layer/points relate, leaving most parameters undocumented even though low coverage compels the description to compensate.

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 merely restates the command identifier ('PartMe Blender Harness command `grease_pencil.add_stroke`') and adds risk/maturity metadata. It never states that this tool adds a stroke to a grease pencil object, so an agent must infer the behavior from the name itself.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as blender_grease_pencil_create or blender_grease_pencil_inspect. The 'Requirements' sentence is a generic harness constraint, not a usage context or alternative selector.

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