Retrieve the full details of the active object in Blender, or return null when no object is selected.
The active object in full detail, or null when nothing is active.
| 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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the null-return behavior when nothing is active, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether this is read-only (likely safe), what 'full detail' includes, or any side effects. The behavior is mostly predictable, but the description is minimal.
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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, and it efficiently communicates the key behavior including the null case. No fluff or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so little is needed. The description is complete for basic usage: retrieving the active object. However, it does not clarify what 'full detail' includes (e.g., transform, mesh data) or how it differs from get_object, which could be helpful in this large sibling context. Minor gaps, but acceptable for such a simple tool.
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 and the schema is fully covered (100%), so there are no parameters to describe. The description adds meaning by explaining the output (full detail or null), which is beyond the schema's empty properties. Since there are no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource (active object) and the verb (get), and specifies that it returns 'full detail' or null when nothing is active. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_object and get_selected_objects by focusing on the active object specifically, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 usage: use when you need the active object's full detail, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over get_object or get_selected_objects. It mentions the null return case which hints at when it might be unhelpful, but lacks explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.