Set an input value for a geometry nodes modifier by providing object, modifier, input name, and value to control procedural parameters directly.
Set a modifier-level input (Group Input interface value).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| modifier | Yes | ||
| input_name | 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?
Annotations only provide idempotentHint, and the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond clarifying that the target is the Group Input interface. It does not disclose whether the input must exist, whether it is created if missing, or any side effects of setting the value.
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?
A single, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds a clarifying parenthetical. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
The description, combined with the input schema (4 required params) and output schema, is adequate for a simple setter, but it leaves gaps around input_name semantics and behavior when the input does not exist. The sibling set_geonode_input is not referenced, so an agent may need additional disambiguation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides general context—object modifier Group Input—which hints at the roles of object, modifier, and input_name, but it does not explicitly detail each parameter or the accepted value formats beyond what the schema's anyOf already conveys.
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 (set) and resource (modifier-level input, specifically the Group Input interface value), which clearly communicates the operation. It distinguishes itself from node-level siblings like set_geonode_input and set_node_input by emphasizing 'modifier-level'.
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 'modifier-level' qualifier implies the intended usage context—configuring a Geometry Nodes modifier's exposed inputs—but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no direct contrast with set_geonode_input or set_node_input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.