MPFB MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mpfb_get_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if MPFB is loaded and usable in Blender and how it is configured. Call it first when other MPFB tools fail unexpectedly.

Instructions

Report whether MPFB is loaded and usable in the connected Blender, and how it is configured. Takes no arguments, changes nothing.

Call this first when any other MPFB tool fails unexpectedly: those tools fail with a bare error when MPFB is missing or broken, and this one tells the two apart.

result always carries:

state: "absent" (MPFB not loaded), "not_initialized" (loaded, but registration did not complete - installed and broken, or half-registered) or "ok". All three are normal answers, not errors.
message: one sentence naming the state and the likely next step, suitable for showing to a user verbatim.
candidate_modules: every loaded module name ending in "mpfb". Normally one; two or more means MPFB is installed twice, which explains erratic behavior from the other MPFB tools.
package, enabled, blender.version.

With state "not_initialized" or "ok" it also carries version and build_info. With state "ok" it additionally carries is_source_dist, addon_installation_path, paths (each entry a path plus a configured flag), asset_roots, asset_packs, rigify_available, and blender.platform / blender.meets_mpfb_minimum / blender.mpfb_minimum_version.

Parts of the result (paths.second_root and anything derived from it) are scene-scoped and change when a different .blend is loaded. Re-call rather than cache.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the three normal `state` values with their meanings, that none of them are errors, the double-installation signal from `candidate_modules`, and the instruction to re-call rather than cache scene-scoped fields. This is rich disclosure; the only slight gap is no note on failure/latency behavior.

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?

Front-loaded purpose and usage sentence followed by clearly structured bullet lists. It is verbose in enumerating result fields, which is partly redundant given an output schema exists, but every line carries real semantic meaning (e.g. what each state value implies).

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is complete: it explains purpose, when to call, what each state means, the double-install signal, and the caching caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'Takes no arguments', aligning with the empty schema; there is nothing further to document.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('whether MPFB is loaded and usable... and how it is configured'), clearly differentiating it from every sibling, which all mutate or inspect scene data. An agent immediately understands this is the diagnostic/health-check tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it: 'Call this first when any other MPFB tool fails unexpectedly,' and explains exactly why it is preferable to the bare error the other tools emit. There is no competing alternative, and the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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