Add a new node to the current clip's color grade. Specify the node type to apply color corrections.
Add a new node to the current clip's color grade.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "add_color_node"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_type | No | Corrector |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'add a new node' and provides no detail about whether an existing node is replaced, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens after invocation. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.
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, and the core action and target are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity sacrifices potentially useful details.
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?
Although the tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral detail leaves the agent guessing. When compared with sibling tools like create_fusion_node, this description provides minimal guidance for correct invocation.
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 mention the node_type parameter or its possible values. The schema shows a default of 'Corrector', but without explanation of valid options or semantics, the description adds no parameter meaning.
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 a specific verb ('Add') and identifies a clear resource ('a new node to the current clip's color grade'), which makes the primary purpose obvious. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_fusion_node by specifying 'color grade', but it does not explicitly contrast alternatives.
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 versus create_fusion_node or other node manipulation tools. The phrase 'current clip's color grade' implies a context, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.