Skip to main content
Glama
ujs204

BlenderMCP

by ujs204

get_polyhaven_status

Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender to determine availability of PolyHaven features for 3D modeling and scene creation.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_polyhaven_status' MCP tool. It uses the BlenderConnection to send a 'get_polyhaven_status' command to Blender and formats the response, appending a note if enabled.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_polyhaven_status(ctx: Context) -> str:
        """
        Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender.
        Returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available.
        """
        try:
            blender = get_blender_connection()
            result = blender.send_command("get_polyhaven_status")
            enabled = result.get("enabled", False)
            message = result.get("message", "")
            if enabled:
                message += "PolyHaven is good at Textures, and has a wider variety of textures than Sketchfab."
            return message
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error checking PolyHaven status: {str(e)}")
            return f"Error checking PolyHaven status: {str(e)}"
  • The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the get_polyhaven_status function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
  • Uses the 'get_polyhaven_status' command to Blender as a connection health check and to cache PolyHaven enabled status.
    # First check if PolyHaven is enabled by sending a ping command
    result = _blender_connection.send_command("get_polyhaven_status")
    # Store the PolyHaven status globally
    _polyhaven_enabled = result.get("enabled", False)
  • Mentions the tool in the asset_creation_strategy prompt as the way to verify PolyHaven status before using its features.
    Use get_polyhaven_status() to verify its status
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 the return ('Returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available') but lacks details on format, error handling, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient—it doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, or has latency/rate limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the action and outcome with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but for a status-check tool, it could benefit from more context—e.g., clarifying the return format or linking to related tools like 'download_polyhaven_asset'. Without annotations or output schema, the description leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. No additional context about inputs is required or provided.

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 PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('PolyHaven integration'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_hyper3d_status' or 'get_sketchfab_status' by focusing on PolyHaven. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other status-checking tools beyond naming the specific integration.

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 sibling tools like 'get_hyper3d_status', or indicate scenarios where this check is necessary (e.g., before attempting PolyHaven downloads). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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