Verify Blender version, workspace root, and scene existence with a single initial call to validate the environment.
Versi Blender, akar ruang kerja, dan apakah adegannya sudah ada. Panggil sekali di awal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruang | No | Nama ruang kerja; tiap ruang punya adegan.blend sendiri. | utama |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly which status facts the tool reports and by instructing that it should be called once at the start. No contradiction exists.
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 extremely concise: two short clauses that front-load what the tool returns and then state when to call it. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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 simple read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return values and call timing. It could mention what happens when the workspace does not exist, but for a status probe with one optional parameter, the description is adequately complete.
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 100%, and the single optional parameter 'ruang' is already well-documented with a default value and pattern. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies a status-checking tool for the Blender workspace and enumerates three concrete outputs: Blender version, workspace root, and scene existence. It is understandable even without a title, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like rupa_cad_status.
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 instruction 'Panggil sekali di awal' gives clear guidance on when to invoke it: once at the beginning of a workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the timing instruction is actionable and sufficient for a status probe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.