blender-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remesh

Transform a 3D object's geometry into uniform voxel or quad-based meshes, providing a clean base for sculpting or retopology.

Instructions

Remesh an object. Modes: VOXEL, QUAD (quadriflow).

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": "remesh"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	VOXEL
`object`	Yes
`voxel_size`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether remeshing modifies the object in place, creates a new object, requires specific mesh conditions, or affects UVs/materials. The mutation behavior is implied but not detailed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence front-loading the core action and modes. Every word earns its place. The structure is clear, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should provide more context to be complete. It lacks information on the remeshing process, parameter dependencies, side effects, and typical use cases. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'mode' parameter by listing valid values (VOXEL, QUAD), which the schema does not provide. However, 'voxel_size' is left entirely unexplained, and 'object' is self-evident. This partial compensation is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Remesh an object.' It also lists the available modes, which adds specificity. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like modifier-based remeshing, the primary purpose is evident.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, object types, or situations where other tools (e.g., add_modifier) might be more appropriate. The modes are listed, but without context for choosing between them beyond naming.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server