Reads a Pixel Composer project file and lists each node’s type, stored input values by index, and connections, so you can understand the graph without opening the app.
List nodes with their type, stored input values (by index) and connections. Reads the file, not the app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation against the file, not the live app, and describes the returned node data, but it does not cover path default behavior, error conditions, or whether the project must exist or be closed.
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 and front-loads the main output structure before adding the important file-vs-app distinction. There is no wasted text.
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 description covers what the tool returns and its read-only nature, which is important because no output schema exists. It is still incomplete for an agent that needs to know how to set path or when this inspection is preferable to opening or checking the project.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the optional path parameter. It implies a file is being read but does not say what path means, what happens when path is null, or whether the default targets a known project.
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 states a specific action and resource: it lists nodes and includes their type, stored input values by index, and connections. The phrase 'Reads the file, not the app' helps distinguish it from app-oriented siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 by clarifying that it reads the file rather than the app, which suggests when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of open_project, status, or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.