Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Blender MCP Plus

Blender MCP Plus

by lusilong
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_blendfile_summary_path_info

Read-only

Retrieve a Blender file’s path, save status, age, and backup details to verify its current state before editing, auditing, or recovering work.

Instructions

Simple/fast access to the blend file's path, save status, age, and backups.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_blendfile_summary_path_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (path, save status, age, backups) and characterizes the call as simple/fast, but it does not disclose deeper behavior such as how backups are determined or whether data is read from disk. This is acceptable given the annotations and output schema.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key characteristics ('Simple/fast access') and quickly lists the covered data categories.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only information tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly mention that this is the non-CLI variant or clarify that it refers to the current blend file, but these are minor omissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage is effectively trivial, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool provides access to the blend file's path, save status, age, and backups. This specific field list distinguishes it from sibling summary tools like datablocks, missing_files, or linked_libraries, so an agent can identify what this tool covers.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It only says 'simple/fast access', which weakly implies lightweight use, but it does not mention exclusions or the existence of the _for_cli sibling variant.

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