Find where previews, checkpoints, exports, and logs are saved, and check if the open .blend file has unsaved changes.
Where the bridge writes previews, checkpoints, exports and logs, plus the currently open .blend file and whether it has unsaved changes.
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It never explicitly states that this is a read-only inspection call or that it does not modify Blender state; it only describes what workspace information is exposed. Error behavior and the no-open-file case are also not addressed.
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 a single compact sentence with no filler and front-loads the output-path information before the file-state details. It could be improved by starting with an explicit verb like 'Returns', but it is appropriately sized for a simple getter.
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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the main payload: output paths plus open-file and unsaved-changes state. It does not specify exact return keys or data types, but the low complexity means an agent can invoke the tool without missing critical instructions.
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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The '0 params = baseline 4' rule applies directly, and the description appropriately does not waste space on parameters.
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 enumerates the exact workspace facts returned: where previews, checkpoints, exports, and logs are written, the current .blend file, and unsaved-changes state. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_bridge_status or get_blender_version, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns'.
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 when-to-use or alternative routing is provided; the intended use is only implied by the enumerated content. With such a long sibling list, guidance against get_bridge_status or get_scene_info would help, but the zero-parameter design keeps ambiguity low.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.