Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp

blender-mcp

by kleer001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_physics

Add a physics simulation to any object in Blender, selecting from rigid body, cloth, fluid, soft body, or collision types to enable realistic behavior.

Instructions

Add a physics simulation. Types: RIGID_BODY, CLOTH, FLUID, SOFT_BODY, COLLISION.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "object": "<object>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "add_physics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes
objectYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only restates the action and lists types. It does not disclose that the action mutates the object, whether existing physics is replaced, or what the output contains.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a list. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no fluff, with every word earning its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

As a mutation tool with no annotations and sparse parameter descriptions, it should explain what happens when physics is added, how 'object' is referenced, and how this relates to the setup_* siblings. The output schema exists but does not cover usage semantics.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds enum-like values for 'type' (RIGID_BODY, CLOTH, FLUID, SOFT_BODY, COLLISION), which is helpful given the bare string schema. However, it provides no semantics for 'object' (e.g., name vs. path), and with 0% schema coverage, it only partially compensates.

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 'Add a physics simulation' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the supported types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling setup tools like setup_rigid_body_world or setup_cloth_sim, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the setup_* siblings or set_physics_property. No prerequisites, such as whether the object must exist or be selected, are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools