Remove an input connection from a geometry node in Blender's modifier stack. Specify the object, modifier, and node to clear the selected input.
Disconnect an input on a geometry node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| input | Yes | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| modifier | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Disconnect' implies a mutation, but it does not describe side effects, whether disconnecting resets the input to a default, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the connection does not exist, or whether it affects other node connections.
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 one short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is arguably too sparse for a tool with four required parameters.
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 mutation tool with four required parameters and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., a geometry nodes modifier must exist), how to identify the node and input, and whether an output schema describes a meaningful result. The agent would need to infer most operational details.
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 clarify the meaning of object, modifier, node, and input. It only mentions 'input on a geometry node,' leaving the other three parameters unexplained. It does not even state the expected format for identifying the input (e.g., name vs index).
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 action and resource: 'Disconnect an input on a geometry node.' It is not a tautology and gives enough information to identify the tool's domain (geometry nodes vs shader/compositor nodes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling connect_geonodes beyond implying the opposite operation.
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 provided about when to use this tool instead of connect_geonodes, set_geonode_input, or disconnect_shader_node. The intended usage is only implicit from the name and generic description, and no conditions or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.