Close the active Blender operation and get a summary of created and removed objects, plus duration. Useful to finalize asset builds and review changes.
Close the open operation and summarise what changed.
Returns which objects were created and removed, and how long it took.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool closes the operation and returns created/removed objects plus duration, which is meaningful behavior. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is final/committed, whether it creates an undo point, or what happens if no operation is open.
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 short sentences: the first states the primary action, the second states the return value. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant schema information.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the call does and what it returns, which is enough for a basic correct invocation. It could be more complete by placing end_operation in the begin_operation/cancel_operation lifecycle, but the core usage is still clear.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is no parameter detail the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies.
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 ('Close the open operation') and the resource it operates on, and 'summarise what changed' plus the return description helps distinguish it from cancel_operation and undo. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it stops just short of full differentiation.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus cancel_operation or get_operation_status. The phrase 'the open operation' implies it requires an active operation, but the description does not state lifecycle prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.