Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp

blender-mcp

by kleer001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

duplicate_material

Duplicates an existing material in Blender to create an independent copy with a new name. Use for variations or separate edits without altering the original.

Instructions

Duplicate a material. Returns the new material name.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_material"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
new_nameNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the core action and return value, but omits important details such as what happens when new_name is null, whether existing materials can be overwritten, and whether the source material's relationships are preserved.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The information is front-loaded and every word adds 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, and does not explain auto-naming behavior or potential error cases.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It does not explain that 'name' is the source material or that 'new_name' is an optional override, though these are weakly inferable from the parameter names themselves.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Duplicate a material') with a specific resource and even includes the key return value ('Returns the new material name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_object and create_material by naming the material resource explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_material, duplicate_object, or delete_material. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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