Retrieve an armature's bone hierarchy and rest-pose positions, plus every mesh bound to it, to inspect or debug a rig.
Bones (name, parent, head/tail in rest pose) of an armature and the meshes bound to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| armature | Yes |
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 full behavioral burden. It hints that data is rest-pose only (useful for distinguishing from blender_set_pose/blender_reset_pose), but says nothing about read-only nature, error behavior for a missing armature, permissions, or whether it mutates scene state.
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, front-loaded sentence that names the primary content and a secondary output. Efficient, though it reads more as a fragment than a full usage-oriented definition.
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 1-parameter info tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key gaps: parameter format, error conditions, and relation to siblings. The rest-pose note is helpful but insufficient.
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 sole parameter 'armature' has no description in schema or tool description. It's unclear whether it expects a name, ID, or path. The description provides no syntax help, so it fails to compensate.
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 a specific resource (armature bones with rest-pose detail) and mentions bound meshes. It is distinguishable from sibling information tools like blender_object_info or blender_scene_info, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 guidance on when to use this vs alternatives such as blender_object_info or pose tools. Nothing about prerequisites (must Blender be running? armature already loaded?) or when-not-to-use is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.