Set up compositing nodes for post-processing by connecting Render Layers to custom nodes, Composite, and Viewer.
Set up compositing nodes for post-processing.
Creates Render Layers → [custom nodes] → Composite + Viewer.
Args: nodes: List of node dicts: [{"type": "CompositorNodeGlare", "settings": {"glare_type": "FOG_GLOW"}}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodes | No |
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 discloses that the tool creates Render Layers, custom nodes, Composite, and Viewer, which is useful, but it does not mention whether existing compositor nodes are cleared/replaced, whether the scene's compositing is enabled, or what happens on repeated calls. This is a significant gap for a setup-style tool.
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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear pipeline diagram and a concise parameter example. It earns its place with minimal waste, though the example could be slightly more detailed.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single complex parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the node list maps to connections, whether the tool replaces existing compositor setup, or how errors in node dicts are handled. An agent would likely need to guess at the exact node dict schema.
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 provides only a brief example of the 'nodes' parameter. It explains the list-of-dicts format with one example but does not document the full range of node types, settings keys, or how nodes are ordered/connected. The description adds some meaning but does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 verb ('Set up') and resource ('compositing nodes for post-processing'), and the pipeline diagram clarifies the intended structure. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_shader_node or connect_shader_nodes, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 for post-processing setup and shows the node chain, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_shader_node or connect_shader_nodes. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.