Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp

blender-mcp

by kleer001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

setup_softbody

Set up soft body physics on a specified object, enabling it to deform and react to forces realistically in Blender.

Instructions

Template: Set up softbody simulation.

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": "setup_softbody"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose what 'set up' entails—whether it adds a physics modifier, requires an existing object, overrides prior physics settings, or has side effects. The behavior is entirely opaque beyond the name.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely short (six words), which is concise but not necessarily effective. The word 'Template:' suggests it is a placeholder rather than a complete tool description, and the brevity leaves out essential context without being truly efficient.

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?

For a physics setup tool with siblings and a multi-step operation, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks prerequisites, configuration defaults, relationship to other physics tools, and any indication of what the output schema confirms. The agent would be guessing about the tool's actual effect.

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 single required parameter 'object' has no schema description and the tool description does not explain it. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic context, and with 0% schema coverage, the agent gets no help in understanding its format or constraints.

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 identifies the action ('Set up') and the resource ('softbody simulation'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_cloth_sim or setup_fluid_domain. However, it is terse and does not mention that it applies to a specific object, leaving the object parameter implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_physics, set_physics_property, or setup_cloth_sim. No exclusions or decision criteria are provided, so the agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for a given task.

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