Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp-bridge

blender-mcp-bridge

by otinori
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

blender/transform_object

Update an object's location, rotation, or scale in Blender by specifying only the properties to change.

Instructions

オブジェクトの位置・回転・スケールを変更する（指定したプロパティのみ更新）

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "blender/transform_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesオブジェクト名
locationNo位置 [x, y, z]
rotationNo回転 [x, y, z]（ラジアン）
scaleNoスケール [x, y, z]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions 'update only specified properties' (partial update), which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (object must exist), or error behavior, leaving gaps.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence front-loading the action. While efficient, a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing properties) could improve readability for a tool with four parameters.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description omits any mention of return value or success indication. The agent lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation, updated object). Error handling (e.g., missing object) is also unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by emphasizing partial update behavior ('specified properties only'), which is not explicit in the schema, helping the agent understand that omitted properties remain unchanged.

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 action (change position, rotation, scale) and the specific resource (object). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get by focusing on transformation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for modifying existing object transforms but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools are not compared, so the agent gets no clear differentiation.

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