Add a mirror modifier to Blender objects, modeling one half and auto-generating the mirrored half for symmetrical assets.
Add a Mirror modifier -- model half an asset and get the other half free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| axis_x | No | ||
| axis_y | No | ||
| axis_z | No | ||
| use_clip | No | Stop vertices crossing the mirror plane | |
| mirror_object | No | Mirror across this object's origin instead of the object's own | |
| modifier_name | No | ||
| merge_threshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 only says a Mirror modifier is added and gives a figurative benefit, but it does not state prerequisites like requiring a selected object, the actual duplication/mirroring behavior, or side effects. This is too thin 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the metaphor adds value without bloating the text.
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?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter coverage, a one-line description is not enough. It omits what 'name' refers to, how the modifier is applied, and what an agent should expect after invocation, making reliable use dependent on external knowledge.
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 only 25%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not clarify the required 'name' parameter (object name vs. modifier name) nor explain axis defaults, merge_threshold, or modifier_name. The two schema-level descriptions for use_clip and mirror_object help, but most parameters remain under-explained.
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 states the action and resource: 'Add a Mirror modifier'. The phrase 'model half an asset and get the other half free' adds useful intent. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the generic add_modifier sibling, so it misses the top score.
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 description implies a use case (symmetric modeling of half an asset), which gives some context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like generic add_modifier or set_modifier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.