DaVinci Resolve MCP Server

by angelOnly

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

create_fusion_node

Create a node in the current Fusion composition, setting its type and inputs for compositing tasks in DaVinci Resolve.

Instructions

Create a new node in the current Fusion composition.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node_type": "<node_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_fusion_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inputs`	No
`node_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states mutation ('Create') but does not explain side effects, whether an existing composition must be open, or what the 'inputs' parameter affects. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and scope. It is appropriately concise for a simple create operation, though it lacks detail needed elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is far from complete. It does not address valid node types, required inputs, or behavior without an active composition, leaving substantial gaps in context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

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 either 'node_type' or 'inputs.' With both parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description, the agent has no semantic guidance for constructing arguments, warranting the lowest score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a new node in the current Fusion composition.' This scope distinguishes it from the more specific sibling 'add_color_node' and other creation tools, meeting the bar for a clear purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 'add_color_node' or other creation tools. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a loaded composition) or any exclusions, so the agent receives no contextual direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.