Skip to main content
Glama

get_polyhaven_status

Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender to determine availability of its 3D asset features for your project.

Instructions

Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender. Returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool() that implements the 'get_polyhaven_status' tool. It sends a command to the Blender addon via socket connection and formats the response.
    def get_polyhaven_status(ctx: Context) -> str:
        """
        Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender.
        Returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available.
        """
        try:
            blender = get_blender_connection()
            result = blender.send_command("get_polyhaven_status")
            enabled = result.get("enabled", False)
            message = result.get("message", "")
            if enabled:
                message += "PolyHaven is good at Textures, and has a wider variety of textures than Sketchfab."
            return message
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error checking PolyHaven status: {str(e)}")
            return f"Error checking PolyHaven status: {str(e)}"
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available,' which covers the basic output behavior. However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., if Blender isn't running), performance aspects, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second explains the return value. There is no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (e.g., error handling or integration specifics). It meets the minimum viable threshold but could be more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter information, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender.' This specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('PolyHaven integration'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_hyper3d_status' or 'get_sketchfab_status' by focusing on PolyHaven. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_polyhaven_categories', which is a minor gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing to verify PolyHaven availability, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be called before using 'download_polyhaven_asset' or 'search_polyhaven_assets', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves usage context somewhat vague.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/johncarlo177/Python.BlenderMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server