Load an image texture and connect it to a material's Principled BSDF target input, with optional colorspace and projection settings.
加载贴图接到 Principled。target: Base Color/Roughness/Metallic/Normal(自动加 Normal Map)/Alpha/Emission Color/Height/AO。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | Base Color | |
| material | Yes | ||
| colorspace | No | ||
| image_path | Yes | ||
| projection | No |
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 carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions that the Normal target automatically adds a Normal Map node, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool creates a new node, replaces existing connections, modifies the material in place, or how colorspace and projection are handled.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and lists target options efficiently. It avoids fluff but is borderline terse, earning a high conciseness score.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain how to specify image_path, colorspace, or projection, and doesn't clarify whether the material must exist or if the tool creates new nodes. The overall context for successful invocation is missing.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'target' parameter's possible values, but provides no guidance for material, image_path, colorspace, or projection. The description adds partial meaning only for one parameter, leaving the rest ambiguous.
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?
Description states a specific action: loading a texture and connecting it to Principled BSDF, and lists the target sockets. This clearly conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from set_principled_inputs by focusing on the image texture loading aspect, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.
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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like set_principled_inputs or create_material. The description only states what it does without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.