Skip to main content
Glama
ujs204

BlenderMCP

by ujs204

get_hyper3d_status

Check if Hyper3D Rodin integration is enabled in Blender to determine availability of 3D modeling features.

Instructions

Check if Hyper3D Rodin integration is enabled in Blender. Returns a message indicating whether Hyper3D Rodin features are available.

Don't emphasize the key type in the returned message, but sliently remember it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_hyper3d_status' tool. It is decorated with @mcp.tool(), which registers it with the FastMCP server. The function sends a 'get_hyper3d_status' command to the Blender connection and processes the response to return a status message indicating if Hyper3D Rodin integration is enabled.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_hyper3d_status(ctx: Context) -> str:
        """
        Check if Hyper3D Rodin integration is enabled in Blender.
        Returns a message indicating whether Hyper3D Rodin features are available.
    
        Don't emphasize the key type in the returned message, but sliently remember it. 
        """
        try:
            blender = get_blender_connection()
            result = blender.send_command("get_hyper3d_status")
            enabled = result.get("enabled", False)
            message = result.get("message", "")
            if enabled:
                message += ""
            return message
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error checking Hyper3D status: {str(e)}")
            return f"Error checking Hyper3D status: {str(e)}"
  • The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the get_hyper3d_status function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
  • Reference to the get_hyper3d_status tool in the asset_creation_strategy prompt, instructing to use it to verify Hyper3D status.
    Use get_hyper3d_status() to verify its status
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a message about availability, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't specify details like response format, error handling, or performance characteristics. The cryptic note about 'key type' adds confusion rather than clarity. It provides basic behavior but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is brief but includes an odd, cryptic sentence ('Don't emphasize the key type...') that doesn't add value and detracts from clarity. The first two sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the third sentence is wasteful and confusing, reducing overall effectiveness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete—it explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks details like the return message structure or error cases, and the cryptic note undermines completeness. For a status-check tool, this is adequate but with gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if Hyper3D Rodin integration is enabled in Blender.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('Hyper3D Rodin integration'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_polyhaven_status or get_sketchfab_status by focusing on Hyper3D Rodin. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_object_info or get_scene_info), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether Blender must be running), compare it to similar tools like get_polyhaven_status, or indicate scenarios where it's necessary (e.g., before using Hyper3D-related tools). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage, which is minimal guidance.

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/ujs204/CLAUDE-BLENDER-MCP'

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