Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp

blender-mcp

by kleer001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_vertex_groups

Read-only

Retrieve vertex groups and their member counts from a mesh object to manage or analyze vertex assignments.

Instructions

Get vertex groups on a mesh with member counts.

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_vertex_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description uses 'Get', so there is no contradiction. It adds the return detail 'member counts' which gives some behavioral context, but it doesn't discuss potential errors, required object format, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence. Every word adds value—'Get vertex groups' states the action, 'on a mesh' the scope, and 'with member counts' the output. It is appropriately concise.

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 with one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return structure. However, it lacks details on how to specify the object and when to use this tool. This leaves gaps, but given the context signals, it is adequate. A 3 reflects the missing usage guidance and parameter specifics.

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?

The schema has only one parameter 'object' with no description (0% schema description coverage). The description indicates the object should be a mesh, but it doesn't explain how to reference the object (by name, path, etc.). This minimal hint does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation, so a 2 is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('vertex groups on a mesh') plus a key output detail ('with member counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mesh_info or get_vertices.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The phrase 'on a mesh' implies it is for mesh objects, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over other getter tools. Usage is only implied, not explicitly stated.

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