Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp

blender-mcp

by kleer001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_node_tree

Read-only

Retrieve the complete shader node tree for a Blender material, including nodes, links, and input values, to enable inspection and modification of material graphs.

Instructions

Get the full shader node tree: nodes, links, input values.

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": {
      "material": "<material>"
    },
    "name": "get_node_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, but the description adds useful behavioral detail about the returned content (nodes, links, input values). It does not mention error cases or performance, but for a read-only operation this is reasonably transparent.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only) and has an output schema, so the description need not elaborate on return format. However, the lack of parameter documentation leaves a gap, making the description only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'material' parameter, leaving its format or meaning unstated. The name gives a hint, but the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 the exact action ('Get') and resource ('shader node tree'), and lists the contents ('nodes, links, input values'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_input or get_geonodes_tree.

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?

The phrase 'full shader node tree' implies this is for retrieving the entire tree, and could be contrasted with get_node_input for individual inputs, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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