Add a geometry nodes modifier to a target object, specifying a node group name for custom procedural effects.
Add a geometry nodes modifier to an object.
Args: object_name: Target object. node_group_name: Name for the node group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | ||
| node_group_name | No | GeometryNodes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Add a geometry nodes modifier', implying a mutation but not disclosing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., object existence), or behavior beyond the action. It does not mention whether existing modifiers are affected or what happens to the object.
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 extremely concise and structured with a clear action line and a simple argument list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. It is appropriately front-loaded with the purpose.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description is too sparse to be complete; it lacks any mention of prerequisites, return values, error conditions, or how this tool integrates with other geometry node operations. The agent would need to infer most context.
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%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It merely restates the parameter names with minimal elaboration: 'object_name: Target object' and 'node_group_name: Name for the node group'. These are nearly tautological and do not clarify the role of the node group or any default behavior.
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 'Add a geometry nodes modifier to an object', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'add_geometry_node', which could be confused. The meaning is clear but lacks differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_geometry_node' or 'connect_geometry_nodes'. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.