Load a Blender rig to set arms to idle pose, attach the rifle to its bone, and return frames, sign rules, named points, clips, and moving parts. Call first before posing or measuring.
Loads a rig: the arms on their idle pose, the rifle on the gun bone, its clips. Returns the frames, sign rules, named points, clips and moving parts. Call first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rig | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful side effects (poses arms idle, attaches rifle to the gun bone, loads clips) and lists what is returned, which is useful. However it omits idempotency/reload behavior and what happens on an invalid rig identifier.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded. The trailing 'Call first' would read better up front, but nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema, so describing the return payload is appropriate and partially done. But with zero annotation coverage and a completely undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves an agent guessing on how to supply 'rig', which is a real gap for a tool that must be called first.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'rig' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. An agent cannot tell whether 'rig' is a name, ID, path, or handle, and the description's 'rig' references add no format or validity detail. With one undocumented required param, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Loads a rig') and goes further by enumerating what state is initialized (idle arm pose, rifle on the gun bone, clips). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list_rigs, but 'Call first' effectively signals its role as the initializer.
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?
'Call first' is an explicit ordering directive that tells the agent when to invoke this relative to the pose_*/move_* siblings. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g. when not to reload), so it lands just under a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.