Retrieves a Substance Designer node's ID, definition, inputs, outputs, parameter values, and connections so you can inspect and edit graph structure accurately.
Devuelve id, definicion, entradas, salidas, parametros con sus valores y conexiones de un nodo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| graph | No | ||
| node_id | Yes | ||
| package | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (definition, inputs, outputs, parameter values, connections), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about cost, error cases when a bad node_id/graph/package is supplied, or side effects.
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 that lists the returned fields without padding. Efficient, though the field dump could be grouped more readably and the language mismatch with the English schema titles is a minor friction.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does part of the job by enumerating return fields. However, for a three-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage it leaves the parameters and their interplay unexplained, so it is not fully sufficient.
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% for three parameters, and the description explains none of them. The distinction between 'package', 'graph' and 'node_id' — including whether graph/package are needed to disambiguate a node — is left entirely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource ('nodo') and enumerates the returned fields: id, definicion, entradas, salidas, parametros con valores, conexiones. This distinguishes it from the narrower sibling get_node_parameter, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this versus list_nodes or get_node_parameter; the description offers no routing signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.