Assign values to a Blender compositor node's input socket, such as numbers or arrays, to control visual effects or render outputs directly within your node graph.
Set a compositor node input value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| input | Yes | ||
| value | 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 adds no behavioral information beyond the annotation. The idempotentHint is present, but the description does not mention side effects, permissions, or any other runtime behavior. Since annotations already cover idempotency, the description offers no additional value here.
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 that front-loads the action. It is not verbose and contains no filler. While it is minimal, it earns its place by being direct.
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 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a compositor node is, what input types are expected, or what the tool returns. An agent would need additional context to use it correctly.
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 tool description does not explain the parameters (node, input, value). There is no guidance on what these parameters represent, acceptable formats, or how they interact, leaving the agent to guess.
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 the action (set) and the resource (compositor node input value) clearly, distinguishing it from shader or geometry node tools. However, it is terse and does not elaborate on the nature of the input or the compositor context, so it falls short of a 5.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_geonode_input or set_node_input. The description simply states the action without any context or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.