texture_importLoads a PNG from the output or assets folder as the Blockbench project texture, optionally setting UV size to match the image dimensions.
Loads a PNG from the output or assets folder as the project texture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path, or "output:<relative path>" / "assets:<relative path>". Must end with .png. | |
| set_uv_size | No | Set the project UV size to the image size. Default false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description never mentions that loading a texture replaces the project's existing texture or what happens on failure. The only added information, the source folders, is already covered by the path parameter's schema. For a flagged-destructive tool this leaves the key consequence undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the key resource is front-loaded. It is efficiently written, though its brevity is part of the transparency problem rather than a virtue in itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only two parameters and full schema coverage, the structural side is fine, but the description omits the destructive consequence flagged in the annotations, does not state whether the previous texture is discarded or restored, and gives no indication of what the call returns or how it errors on a missing or non-PNG file.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with path format and set_uv_size semantics fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely restates the folder aspect of path and says nothing about set_uv_size (e.g. whether direct-pixel tools then operate at the new UV size).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: it loads a PNG and makes it the project texture, and it names the two permitted source folders (output or assets). That is clear enough to know what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from siblings such as texture_create or texture_set_pixels, which also produce texture content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus texture_create, texture_set_pixels, texture_draw or texture_fill_rect, nor any preconditions beyond the implicit source-folder constraint. The agent must infer the selection criteria purely from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.