Retrieve the current value of a specified geometry node input in Blender to inspect or validate node settings.
Get a geometry node input's current value.
| 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?
The description says 'current value', which implies read-only behavior, and this aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation itself, such as what happens if the input doesn't exist, whether it returns a default value, or any dependencies like the object needing a geometry nodes modifier.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It packs the essential verb and resource into a clear, front-loaded statement, which is appropriate for a simple getter tool.
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 the output schema covers return values and readOnlyHint covers safety, the description missing parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves the agent under-equipped. For a tool with four required parameters and a specialized domain, more context about how to specify the geometry node input is necessary.
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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the four required parameters: object, modifier, node, and input. The agent is left to infer that object identifies the mesh, modifier references the geometry nodes modifier, and input names the specific input, but no explicit semantics are provided.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'geometry node input's current value', which clearly identifies the read operation. It differentiates from the sibling set_geonode_input by indicating retrieval, but does not explicitly contrast with get_node_input, so it doesn't fully distinguish from that related sibling.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_node_input or set_geonode_input, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as the modifier needing to exist or the node tree being accessible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.