Adds a geometry nodes modifier to an object, creating a new tree or reusing an existing one. Specify object, modifier name, and tree name.
Add a geometry nodes modifier. Creates a new tree or uses an existing one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | GeometryNodes | |
| object | Yes | ||
| tree_name | No |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important behavior—creating a new tree or reusing an existing one—but it omits side effects, prerequisites, or what happens to the target object. For a mutating tool, this is thin.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. Both sentences carry meaning and there is no filler. It is slightly under-specified for the parameter set, but as a concise statement it is well structured.
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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation in the description, this is incomplete. An agent would not know that object is required, what name defaults to, or how tree_name selects between new and existing trees. The output schema may describe return values, but the input semantics are insufficiently covered.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely hints at tree_name behavior ('Creates a new tree or uses an existing one'). It does not explain the required object parameter, the name default, or how tree_name interacts with tree creation.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Add a geometry nodes modifier.' It also adds scope by noting it creates a new tree or uses an existing one, which differentiates it from generic modifier tools. It could more explicitly contrast with the sibling add_modifier, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_modifier or create_geonode. The description implies its use case but does not state exclusions or provide decision criteria for choosing it over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.