Skip to main content
Glama
full-aigc-plugins

partme_blender

by full-aigc-plugins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

validation.floor_penetration

blender_validation_floor_penetration
Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect when a Blender object intersects or falls below a specified floor plane across a frame range, validating floor penetration to catch geometry clipping or sinking issues.

Instructions

PartMe Blender Harness command validation.floor_penetration. Risk: read; maturity: L3. Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
floorZNo
objectYesStable Blender object locator by name, objectId, or both
frameEndYes
_requestIdNoStable request id for replay safety
frameStartYes
_authorizationNoAction-bound Harness authorization claim
_transactionIdNoHarness milestone transaction id
_expectedSceneRevisionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.5.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / object / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / object / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "name"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "objectId"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / object / description
      Added value: +"Stable Blender object locator by name, objectId, or both"
    • addedInput schema / properties / object / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "name": {
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "objectId": {
+    "pattern": "^obj_[0-9a-f]{32}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / object / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +"object"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Risk: read' is consistent and adds little. However, it does add 'maturity: L3' and clarifies that per-request argument checks and session policy still apply, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The text is extremely short and front-loaded with the command name, with no wasted prose. However, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness: the first sentence mostly repeats the title, and the remaining sentences cover policy rather than function. Appropriate brevity would include a purpose statement.

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?

Given 9 parameters, a nested object, and a large sibling set, the description is far from complete. Even though annotations and an output schema cover safety and return shape, an agent cannot determine what 'floor penetration' means, which inputs drive the validation, or what criteria produce a pass/fail.

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 44%, yet the description contributes zero parameter semantics. Required parameters like frameStart, frameEnd, and object, plus optional limit and floorZ, are left completely unexplained in prose. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, this is a serious gap.

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 restates the command identifier ('validation.floor_penetration') and the harness context; it never says what the tool actually does, what it validates, or what a result means. With sibling validation tools like foot_drift, limb_length, and motion_discontinuity present, the text provides no basis for distinguishing it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or how it compares to alternatives. The requirement note about argument checks and session policy is operational context, not usage selection guidance. It is not misleading, but effectively absent.

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