Skip to main content
Glama
full-aigc-plugins

partme_blender

by full-aigc-plugins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

validation.motion_discontinuity

blender_validation_motion_discontinuity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate object motion continuity in Blender by checking frame-by-frame position and rotation changes against configured angle and distance limits.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

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

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only a redundant 'Risk: read' and an L3 maturity label, with no additional behavioral details such as what data is inspected or what could cause failure.

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 very short and front-loaded, but its single sentence is administrative boilerplate rather than a functional explanation. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description does not explain the tool's purpose, what motion discontinuity means, or how it differs from the other validation siblings. For a 9-parameter tool with nested objects, this is far from complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 44%, and the description names none of the five required parameters (angleLimitDegrees, frameEnd, frameStart, object, positionLimit). It adds no meaning beyond the sparse schema descriptions, failing to clarify thresholds or relationships.

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 identifies the tool as a 'PartMe Blender Harness command validation.motion_discontinuity' and lists risk and maturity, but never states what the validation does or what 'motion discontinuity' checks. It relies entirely on the tool name for meaning and does not provide a verb+resource description.

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 use this tool versus sibling validation tools like validation_floor_penetration or validation_foot_drift. The only note about 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' is a generic policy requirement, not usage context.

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