Link geometry node outputs to inputs in a Blender node tree to define data flow and build procedural setups.
Connect nodes in a geometry node tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object | Yes | ||
| to_node | Yes | ||
| modifier | Yes | ||
| to_input | Yes | ||
| from_node | Yes | ||
| from_output | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Connect nodes' and does not mention whether connecting an input replaces an existing connection, whether it modifies the object's modifier node tree, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.
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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Omitting all parameter and behavior context makes the brevity a deficiency, not a strength.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description still fails to provide enough context for correct invocation of a tool with six required parameters and no parameter documentation. The operation is simple in concept, but socket addressing and replacement behavior are not covered, which leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter information at all. The six required parameters—object, modifier, from_node, from_output, to_node, to_input—are left entirely to name inference, and the string/integer socket addressing format is not explained.
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, 'connect', and a clear resource, 'nodes in a geometry node tree.' It distinguishes itself from similar sibling tools like connect_shader_nodes and connect_comp_nodes through the 'geometry node tree' qualifier. However, it does not explain the exact operation scope, such as socket-level connection or one-to-one linking.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not explicitly direct an agent to use this tool only for geometry node trees or mention that shader/compositor connections belong elsewhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.