Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp

blender-mcp

by kleer001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_constraints

Read-only

Get a complete list of constraints on a Blender object or pose bone to review and modify their properties directly.

Instructions

List constraints on an object or pose bone.

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": "list_constraints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boneNo
objectYes

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 readOnlyHint annotation already conveys the non-mutating nature, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds minor scope clarification (object vs pose bone) but does not disclose any further behavioral details, such as whether an empty list is returned for unconstrained objects.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 and there is an output schema (not shown), so the description need not detail return values. However, the ambiguity around parameter usage and the lack of differentiation from sibling tools leave the description slightly incomplete for an agent to use it correctly without additional inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It identifies 'bone' as a pose bone but fails to explain the relationship between the 'object' and 'bone' parameters, such as whether providing a bone overrides the object or filters constraints on that specific bone.

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 the tool's function: listing constraints on an object or pose bone, with a specific verb ('List') and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'list_bone_constraints', which may cover a subset of the same scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_bone_constraints' or 'get_bone_info'. The presence of a highly similar sibling makes the lack of usage direction a notable gap.

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