Creates a basic cube at specified x, y, z coordinates in Blender. Use it to add a primitive mesh for asset generation.
Create a cube at (x, y, z).
Kept for compatibility with the original bridge; create_primitive is the general tool and takes rotation, scale and collection too.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| z | No | ||
| name | No | AI_Cube | |
| size | 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. It only states 'Create a cube' without mentioning side effects, required scene state, default behaviors (e.g., which collection the cube lands in), or any limitations. As a mutation tool, this is a notable gap in transparency.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the compatibility note is concise. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover the tool's full behavior and parameter meaning. It covers purpose and gives a hint at the alternative, but omits parameter details for size and name, and lacks behavioral context (e.g., what the cube is, where it appears, any prerequisites). This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains x, y, z as position coordinates but says nothing about the 'size' or 'name' parameters. Since half the parameters are unexplained, the description adds only partial value beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a cube at (x, y, z).' It clearly differentiates from the sibling create_primitive by noting it is kept for compatibility and that create_primitive is the general tool with rotation, scale, and collection. This allows an agent to distinguish the two without inspecting schemas.
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?
It names the alternative (create_primitive) and explains why create_cube exists (compatibility), implying create_cube is for simple cube creation without extra options. While not an explicit 'use this when...' statement, it provides enough context to route appropriately. It lacks a direct exclusion of other tools like create_mesh.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.