Inspect an imported Blender model to list objects, vertex groups, bounds, longest axis, and a unit guess, forming the starting point for its parts map.
What a model holds as Blender shows it after import (objects, vertex groups, bounds, the longest axis, a units guess): the starting point of its parts map.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | 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 helpfully enumerates the return contents (objects, vertex groups, bounds, longest axis, units guess), which is real disclosure, but it never states that the operation is non-destructive/read-only, nor anything about permissions, side effects, or whether the import it describes alters state.
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 sentence with no padding, but the opening clause 'What a model holds as Blender shows it after import' is awkward and front-loads a confusing noun phrase rather than the action. Compact, but the structure costs comprehension.
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 output schema, the description does useful work by listing the returned fields, and with no annotations it partially covers behavior by implying a read. However it leaves the required parameter undefined and gives no safety profile or workflow placement, so it is only partially complete for the tool.
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 0% and the single 'model' parameter has no schema description. The description refers to 'a model' only as the subject of inspection and never clarifies what form the parameter takes (file path, asset name, ID) or its expected format, so it 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?
The description identifies the resource (a model as Blender sees it after import) and enumerates the data revealed (objects, vertex groups, bounds, longest axis, units guess), but never states an explicit verb — 'inspect' only lives in the name. An agent can infer it is a read/inspection operation, yet the sentence's framing as a noun phrase makes the action itself vague, and it does not distinguish it from siblings like gunkit_verify or gunkit_proxy.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many gunkit_* and rig_* siblings. The trailing phrase 'the starting point of its parts map' weakly implies it belongs first in a pipeline, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.