Connect shader nodes in a Blender material by specifying the source node and socket, and the destination node and socket.
连线。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_node | Yes | ||
| material | Yes | ||
| from_node | Yes | ||
| to_socket | Yes | ||
| from_socket | 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 present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral effects such as side effects, required permissions, default behavior, or edge cases. The action of 'linking nodes' is entirely unspecified.
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 extremely brief (two characters), which is concise but at the cost of essential information. It lacks any explanation of the tool's function, making it functionally useless despite being short.
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?
There is no output schema, no nested objects, and no additional context. Given the complexity of node operations implied by the parameter list (five required fields), the description is entirely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, inputs, or outputs.
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?
The schema provides only parameter titles (material, from_node, from_socket, to_node, to_socket) with no descriptions or value formats. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters represent or how they interact.
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 is only '连线。' (Chinese for 'connect lines.'), which is a vague verb without a specific resource. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like link_geometry_nodes, unlink_nodes, or set_node_input, and provides no context on what kind of nodes are linked.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many related node operations, but the description gives no criteria (e.g., material nodes vs. geometry nodes) to select the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.