Skip to main content
Glama

group_objects

Organize multiple 3D objects by grouping them under a null object in Cinema 4D. Specify object names and optional group name for better scene management.

Instructions

Group multiple objects under a null object.

Args:
    object_names: List of object names to group
    group_name: Optional name for the group

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
object_namesYes
group_nameNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation of the "group_objects" tool in Cinema 4D MCP server.
    async def group_objects(
        object_names: List[str], group_name: Optional[str] = None, ctx: Context = None
    ) -> str:
        """
        Group multiple objects under a null object.
    
        Args:
            object_names: List of object names to group
            group_name: Optional name for the group
        """
        async with c4d_connection_context() as connection:
            if not connection.connected:
                return "❌ Not connected to Cinema 4D"
    
            # Prepare command
            command = {"command": "group_objects", "object_names": object_names}
    
            if group_name:
                command["group_name"] = group_name
    
            # Send command to Cinema 4D
            response = send_to_c4d(connection, command)
            return format_c4d_response(response, "group_objects")
  • Registration of the group_objects tool using the @mcp.tool decorator.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions grouping objects but doesn't explain what happens after grouping (e.g., does it create a new parent object, modify existing ones, affect scene hierarchy?), whether it's reversible, or any side effects like performance impacts. The phrase 'under a null object' is ambiguous and adds little clarity. More behavioral details are needed for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence followed by a bullet-point list of args. There's no unnecessary fluff, and information is front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it's efficient as is.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome of grouping, error conditions, or how this fits into the broader context of sibling tools like scene manipulation. For a tool that likely alters scene state, more completeness is needed to guide safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description lists parameters ('object_names' and 'group_name') and provides brief explanations, adding some meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints (e.g., what constitutes valid object names, length limits, or the effect of a null group_name). With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this offers basic compensation but lacks depth.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('Group multiple objects') and target ('under a null object'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'null object' means in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'modify_object' or 'create_abstract_shape' among the siblings. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the domain or system.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. With siblings like 'modify_object', 'create_abstract_shape', and 'list_objects', there's no indication of prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where grouping objects is preferred over other operations. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ttiimmaacc/cinema4d-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server