Creates a PBR output node for baseColor, normal, roughness, metallic, height, or ambientOcclusion and optionally connects it to a source node.
Crea un nodo de salida con usage: baseColor, normal, roughness, metallic, height o ambientOcclusion.
Con source_node lo conecta a esa fuente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| graph | No | ||
| label | No | ||
| usage | Yes | ||
| package | No | ||
| identifier | No | ||
| source_node | No | ||
| source_output | 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. It implies a mutation (creating a node) and hints that source_node wires it to a source, but never says which graph is affected when 'graph' is null, whether an existing node is replaced, or what identifier the caller receives back.
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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. The line break before the source_node sentence is slightly disjointed but costs nothing.
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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: most parameters are unexplained and there is no indication of return value or side effects. The only compensating strength is the implicit enumeration of valid usage values.
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 9 parameters, and the description only explains two of them: it turns the free-form 'usage' string into an implicit enum of six values and clarifies that source_node links the output to a source. Position (x, y), graph, label, package, identifier and especially the pairing of source_node with source_output remain undefined.
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 ("Crea un nodo de salida") and even names the accepted usage categories, so the agent knows exactly what is being produced. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling create_node, leaving ambiguity about which tool to pick for a generic node.
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 second sentence implies the connection workflow via source_node, which is useful context. There is no explicit when-to-use versus create_node/connect_nodes, and no stated prerequisite that a graph must be open or supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.