Export static Blender geometry to .obj, with control over UVs, normals, materials, and modifiers.
Export to .obj. Simple static geometry only -- no animation, no PBR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objects | No | Object names. Omit to use the current selection. | |
| filename | Yes | Filename stem; .obj is added | |
| export_uvs | No | ||
| triangulate | No | ||
| selected_only | No | ||
| export_normals | No | ||
| apply_modifiers | No | ||
| export_materials | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key limitation (static geometry only), but it says nothing about file overwriting, whether it modifies the scene, required permissions, or the output file location. This is a modest level of 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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and a key limitation are front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how to specify objects, how selection interacts with the selected_only flag, or what happens to the output file. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without opening the schema and guessing.
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%, yet the description mentions none of the parameters. It does not explain what 'objects', 'filename', 'triangulate', or other options do. The schema itself is largely undocumented, and the description provides no compensation, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from titles and defaults alone.
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 'Export to .obj' and adds a scope limitation ('Simple static geometry only'), which distinguishes it from more capable export formats like glTF or FBX. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or the export target (selection, scene, etc.), so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
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 provides a clear usage condition: use this tool only for simple static geometry without animation or PBR. This implicitly tells the agent when to choose another format, but it does not name specific alternatives like export_glb or export_fbx, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.