Lists available Blender operation summaries or retrieves one operation's arguments, so AI agents can plan and execute batched bpy workflows.
List operation summaries, or fetch one operation's arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / operation / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / operation / defaultRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / operation / titleRemoved value: -"Operation"Input schema / properties / operation / typeAdded value: +"string"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"discoverArguments"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the mode-switching behavior (listing vs single fetch based on the parameter), but never states that this is a read-only/no-side-effect operation, nor does it mention auth requirements or whether the listing is paginated or bounded.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary list behavior and then the fetch variant. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and undefined terminology ('operations') plus an ambiguous sibling set, the description is too thin for an agent to confidently choose this over 'inspect' or to know how to call it.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'operation' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does explain that supplying 'operation' fetches that operation's arguments, but it does not say what form the identifier takes (name, path, ID) or where to obtain it, leaving real ambiguity.
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 names two concrete behaviors with specific verbs and resources: listing operation summaries and fetching one operation's arguments. It is clear what the tool does at a high level, but it never defines what an 'operation' is (an API route? a command?) and does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling 'inspect', which sounds adjacent.
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?
The dual-mode wording implies usage: call with no argument to list, call with 'operation' to fetch details. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings 'inspect', 'execute', or 'capture', and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.