Configures a bounded Eevee render scene by setting resolution, samples, transparency, frame rate, and timeline range for Blender.
Configure a bounded Eevee render scene: square or rectangular resolution, samples, transparency, FPS, and timeline range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | Yes | ||
| engine | Yes | ||
| samples | Yes | ||
| frame_end | Yes | ||
| frame_start | Yes | ||
| transparent | Yes | ||
| resolution_x | Yes | ||
| resolution_y | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no safety or idempotency information (all hints false), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only lists parameters and does not disclose that it mutates the current scene, whether the operation is reversible, or how it affects subsequent renders. No contradiction with annotations, but little behavioral context beyond the word 'Configure'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence with no filler; the primary action and settings are front-loaded, and every phrase maps to a set of parameters in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with eight required parameters, no output schema, and no annotation help, the description is too thin. It leaves out what 'bounded' means operationally, why engine variant matters, and what state the call produces; the schema can enforce constraints but cannot supply the workflow context an agent needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate for all eight parameters but only maps them at a category level. It does not explain the difference between BLENDER_EEVEE and BLENDER_EEVEE_NEXT, what 'transparent' affects, inclusive timeline bounds, or the practical meaning of sample counts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('Eevee render scene') and enumerates exactly what is set: resolution, samples, transparency, FPS, timeline range. It reads as a scene-level counterpart to sibling tools like blender_configure_world, though it does not explicitly call out which sibling it is not.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use when the task is to set bounded Eevee render-scene parameters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g., configure_world for world settings, render for output), leaving the agent to infer placement in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.