Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp

blender-mcp

by kleer001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

free_physics_bake

Destructive

Free baked physics simulation data to reset an object's dynamics state. Discard cached simulation results irreversibly when preparing for a fresh simulation.

Instructions

Free baked physics simulation data. Irreversible.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "free_physics_bake"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectNo

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?

The description adds 'Irreversible,' which aligns with and slightly extends the destructiveHint annotation by emphasizing permanence. However, it does not disclose scope (e.g., whether it affects the whole object or just baked data) or any other behavioral details.

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, front-loaded with the core action and a critical warning. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context: what the optional 'object' parameter does, prerequisites (e.g., existing baked data), and expected results. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing parameter and usage details.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has one parameter 'object' with no description and zero schema coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its purpose and behavior completely unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('Free') and resource ('baked physics simulation data'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bake_physics. The verb 'free' unambiguously indicates releasing/clearing data.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bake_physics or remove_physics. The only hint is 'Irreversible,' which implies caution but does not specify conditions 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