Clears a Blender scene by deleting all objects and purging orphan data, while optionally preserving chosen object types such as cameras or lights. Use it to start fresh without restarting.
Remove all objects (orphan data purged). keep: object types to keep, e.g. ["CAMERA", "LIGHT"].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keep | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait — orphan data is purged, making this destructive and non-reversible — which is genuinely useful. However it omits permission/state requirements, whether the Blender session must be running, and what happens to scene-level settings.
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?
Two compact clauses with zero filler. The destructive action is front-loaded and the parameter note follows. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema this is close to sufficient, and the purge semantics plus the keep example are the key facts. It still leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites (running Blender instance) and post-conditions, which matters for a destructive sibling in a large toolset.
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% (the schema only supplies a title and default for 'keep'), so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining the parameter is a list of object types to preserve with a concrete example ['CAMERA','LIGHT']. This gives the agent enough to construct the argument correctly.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Remove all objects' with a parenthetical on orphan data. An agent can distinguish it from blender_open/import/export siblings. It's slightly weakened by the name 'blender_new_scene', which suggests scene creation rather than object removal, but the body resolves the ambiguity.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. Blender must be running), and no reference to alternative cleanup paths such as blender_open or blender_run_python. The agent must infer the use case entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.