Reads a WGSL effect node's source, hash, state, problems, and parameters by name so AI clients can inspect and fix shader nodes before writing.
A node's source, its hash (what vfx_shader_write's replaces names), its state and problems, and its parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Node name in the library, like ring/shock (letters, digits, _ and -) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 the returned surface area: source, hash, state/problems, and parameters. It says nothing about read-only safety guarantees, behavior when the node is missing, or permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence covering the return surface with no filler. The parenthetical 'what vfx_shader_write's replaces names' is grammatically garbled and slightly hard to parse, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does enumerate source, hash, state, problems, and parameters. It is largely complete for a one-parameter read tool, with only error/missing-node behavior left unstated.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the name format ('ring/shock, letters, digits, _ and -'). The description adds only the possessive 'a node's', so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names the resource (a node) and enumerates what it surfaces: source, hash, state, problems, and parameters, which distinguishes it from vfx_shader_write/vfx_shader_edit. The retrieval verb itself is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, so it falls short of a clean verb+resource statement.
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?
Using 'a node's' implies single-node retrieval versus vfx_shader_list's enumeration, and the hash parenthetical ties it to vfx_shader_write, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., 'to see all nodes use vfx_shader_list').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.