Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp

blender-mcp

by kleer001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

duplicate_object

Duplicate a Blender object. Optionally create a linked copy sharing mesh data with the original.

Instructions

Duplicate an object. If linked=True, the copy shares mesh data with the original.

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_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
linkedNo
new_nameNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the key linked=True behavior of sharing mesh data, which is useful. But it does not disclose other side effects like whether materials, children, or transforms are copied, nor the effect of new_name.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very concise with two short sentences, and every word adds value. However, it might be too sparse given the parameter complexity, so it loses a point for lack of necessary detail.

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?

For a duplication tool with no annotations and minimal parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about name/new_name semantics, and what exactly gets duplicated (materials, children, etc.). Output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the operational context is insufficient.

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 compensate. It explains linked=True's effect, but does not explain what 'name' refers to (the object to duplicate) or 'new_name' (the output name). Only one of three parameters is clarified, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 'Duplicate an object' which is a specific verb and resource, and the linked parameter adds scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_object or copy_modifiers, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: duplicate an existing object when you want a copy. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other approaches (e.g., creating a new object and copying data), and no exclusions or prerequisites 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