Add a UV map to a Blender mesh object, setting its name and active state. Use a second UV layer for lightmaps or custom texture coordinates.
Add a UV map. A mesh can hold at most 8 (a second one is the usual place for a lightmap).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Mesh object name | |
| uv_name | No | Name for the UV map | UVMap |
| make_active | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully reveals the 8-layer limit and the lightmap convention, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether the new layer becomes active (related to make_active) or what happens if the limit is exceeded.
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 brief sentences, front-loading the core action and adding only the most relevant additional fact. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits prerequisites, side effects, failure behavior at the 8-layer cap, and explanation of make_active, leaving an agent with incomplete information for a correct call.
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 coverage is 67%, with make_active lacking a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving the behavior of make_active ambiguous and not compensating for the schema gap.
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: 'Add a UV map.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_uv_layers, set_active_uv_layer, and delete_uv_layer. It does not explicitly contrast with projection/unwrap tools, but the operation is concrete and understandable.
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?
There is no explicit 'use this when' or comparison to alternatives. However, the note that a second UV map is the usual place for a lightmap implies a common use case, providing some contextual guidance without naming or excluding sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.