Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp

blender-mcp

by kleer001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_geonodes_tree

Read-only

Inspect an object's geometry node tree by retrieving its nodes, links, and inputs for analysis or debugging.

Instructions

Get the geometry node tree structure: nodes, links, inputs.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_geonodes_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectYes
modifierNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys the safe read-only nature. The description adds a small amount of context by naming the returned components (nodes, links, inputs), but does not disclose modifier-related behavior, potential errors, or object requirements beyond that.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having an output schema and a readOnlyHint, the description is too thin for a tool with two parameters at 0% schema coverage. It does not explain the optional 'modifier' parameter, possible object states, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for the 'object' or 'modifier' parameters. It only mentions output components ('nodes, links, inputs'), leaving the meaning and expected format of the parameters entirely to the schema types.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('geometry node tree structure'), and further specifies the content as 'nodes, links, inputs.' This distinguishes it from related tools like get_node_tree and get_geonode_input.

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 context is implied by the verb 'Get' and the resource type, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any caveats or required setup. It stops at stating what it does.

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