Launch Blender, optionally open a .blend file, and wait until the addon socket responds; no-op if already running. Finds blender.exe in Program Files or via BLENDER_EXE.
Launch Blender (optionally opening blend_file) and wait until the addon socket answers.
No-op if it is already up. Finds blender.exe in Program Files or via $BLENDER_EXE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| blend_file | 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 real behavior: it blocks until the socket answers, is idempotent when already running, and resolves blender.exe from Program Files or $BLENDER_EXE. It omits what happens on timeout, what error a failure yields, and whether a partially started process is left behind.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and blocking behavior. The executable-discovery sentence is useful but arguably incidental detail for a caller; otherwise there is no waste.
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 two-parameter lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the blocking and idempotency semantics but leaves the timeout parameter, failure modes, and the relationship to blender_open/blender_status unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 0% and the schema gives no titles or descriptions beyond type/default. The description explains only blend_file as an optional file to open; the timeout parameter is never mentioned, so its unit, effect, and failure consequence are undocumented in both schema and description.
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 and resource ('Launch Blender') plus the blocking condition ('wait until the addon socket answers'), which is more precise than the bare name. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling blender_open, which plausibly overlaps in intent, leaving an agent to guess between 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?
Provides one useful usage condition — 'No-op if it is already up' — which tells the agent an idempotent call is safe. It gives no guidance on when to prefer blender_start over blender_open or what to do if startup fails, so usage is only implied, not framed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.