Identify all linked library files in a Blender scene, showing direct and indirect dependencies as a tree. Helps manage asset references and troubleshoot broken links.
Return a tree of directly and indirectly linked library files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the description's 'Return' statement. The description adds useful context about the output being a tree and covering indirect links. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like potential performance implications or whether the result is cached. Since annotations already cover the read-only safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool is part of a large sibling set, and the description fails to differentiate itself from the CLI variant or to clarify what constitutes a 'linked library file' in the Blender context. This is a minor completeness gap, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
There are no parameters (0 params, 0 required, 100% schema coverage). The baseline for parameter semantics is 4 when no params exist, as the description need not add anything. It correctly does not attempt to document parameters.
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 clearly states the action (Return) and the specific resource (a tree of directly and indirectly linked library files). It distinguishes from siblings like get_blendfile_summary_missing_files and get_blendfile_summary_datablocks by focusing on linked libraries and the tree structure. The inclusion of 'directly and indirectly' adds precision.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over the CLI variant (get_blendfile_summary_of_linked_libraries_for_cli) or other summary tools. No exclusions or contextual cues are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.