Material Maker MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_node_parameter

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one node parameter value by node and name to inspect current procedural material graph settings before edits or validation.

Instructions

Read one node parameter.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node": "<node>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_node_parameter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`node`	Yes
`material_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what happens if the parameter is absent, how defaults (material_id='') behave, or what the read returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, at this length it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — nothing beyond the bare action is conveyed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with three undocumented parameters, no usage context, and no behavioral detail, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description does not explain what 'node' identifies, that 'name' is the parameter key, or why 'material_id' has an empty-string default. It leaves all three parameters semantically opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one node parameter'), which is enough to distinguish it from the write-side sibling set_node_parameter. It stops short of naming or contrasting with any sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 versus list_node_types, describe_node_type, or get_material_node, nor any prerequisite information (e.g., that the node must already exist). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.