List all actions accepted by the Blender bridge. Use it to discover available actions when no structured tool exists, so you can still execute them via Python.
List every action the Blender bridge accepts.
Useful when a structured tool is missing: the action may still exist, and execute_blender_python can always fill the gap.
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List' and hints that the list may include actions not exposed as structured tools, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness or the output shape. This is minimally adequate but not deeply transparent.
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?
Two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and a brief, useful usage note second. No redundant or filler content.
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 simple, zero-parameter enumeration tool, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. The lack of an explicit return-type statement is minor because the name and verb already imply a list of action names.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and no parameter guidance is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every action the Blender bridge accepts'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also positions itself in contrast to execution tools by noting the action may exist even when a structured tool is missing.
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?
Explicitly says this tool is useful when a structured tool is missing, and names the alternative (execute_blender_python) that can fill the gap. This gives an agent a clear decision rule for when to call this tool versus other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.