Find coordinates of bones, fingertips, and rig points in gun, arms, or view frames to pose and measure first-person arms and rifles in Blender.
Where bones, fingertips (tip<l|r>) and rig points are, in a frame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | No | gun: the gun bone, cm (+X gun's left, +Y barrel, +Z up); arms: the arms' space, cm; view: from the eye, cm (+X right, +Y forward, +Z up) | gun |
| names | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only location query but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what it returns, whether results are coordinates or names, or what units apply.
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?
It is a single, tightly written sentence with the resource listed first and the frame context second. There is no wasted wording, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain the return shape and how frame coordinates are reported. It also omits routing guidance among the many sibling rig and spatial tools, leaving notable gaps for correct invocation.
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 50%: the frame enum is documented in the schema, while names has no schema description. The description compensates partially by giving the fingertip naming pattern `<finger>_tip_<l|r>`, but it does not explain valid rig point or bone name formats.
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 the resource being queried: bones, fingertips, and rig points, and notes that they are located in a frame. However, it does not use a clear query verb such as 'get' or 'returns', and it does not distinguish this tool from spatial siblings like distance, clearance, visible, or describe. The intent is inferable but not crisply differentiated.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the right tool when it needs positional data rather than distance, clearance, or visibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.