Construct a complete material node tree in Blender by specifying nodes and links in a single operation.
一次性建树：nodes=[{type,name?,location?,inputs?,properties?}]，links=[{from_node,from_socket,to_node,to_socket}]。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | ||
| links | No | ||
| nodes | Yes | ||
| material | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the data structures but says nothing about side effects such as whether the existing node tree is cleared, whether 'clear' is destructive, or how the required 'material' is applied.
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 compact line with the main action front-loaded. It has no filler, though its terseness borders on cryptic.
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 mutating tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too incomplete. It does not explain the required material parameter, the clear behavior, or the relationship to an existing node tree.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description does partially compensate by defining the node fields (type, name, location, inputs, properties) and link fields. However, it completely omits the required 'material' parameter and the 'clear' boolean, leaving two of four parameters unexplained.
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 action ('一次性建树' – build tree in one pass) and gives the input shape for nodes and links. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool build_geometry_node_tree, which sounds similar.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_geometry_node_tree, link_nodes, or set_node_input. The description only provides input formats, not contextual usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.