Set a node input’s static value in a .pxc file and reload the open project so subsequent exports use the updated value.
Set a node input's static value in the .pxc file (node = id, iname or name).
Reloads it in the app when it is the open project, so a following export uses the new value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| index | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| reload | 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 carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: it mutates the .pxc file on disk and reloads the project in the app only when that project is currently open. It omits what happens on failure (missing node, unwritable file), whether the prior value is recoverable, and what is returned.
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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and scope, then the side effect. Every clause carries information the agent needs.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. Key gaps remain: meaning of `path` and `index`, accepted type/shape of `value`, and error or no-op behavior when the node or project is absent.
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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate — it only explains `node` (id/iname/name) and indirectly hints at `reload`. `path`, `index`, and `value` (untyped, no schema description) are left completely undefined, including whether `path` is a file or project path.
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 gives a specific verb and resource — set a node input's static value in the .pxc file — and clarifies that `node` may be an id, iname, or name. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (open_project, inspect_project, export, run_command, status, close), none of which touch node inputs.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than stated: the note that a reload makes 'a following export use the new value' tells the agent to call this before exporting. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (project open, node existing), and no alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.