Set the value of a geometry node's input socket inside a node group. Provide the node group, node, socket, and value to adjust Blender geometry node parameters.
设置几何节点输入插槽值。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| socket | Yes | ||
| node_group | 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, and the description only states the action without mentioning side effects, such as whether it modifies the node tree in place, what happens if the node or socket is invalid, or whether it returns any confirmation or result.
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 unnecessary words or redundant information. It is perfectly appropriately sized for its simple purpose.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple identifiers to specify the node and socket), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the node group, node, or socket, nor does it mention any expected outcomes or error scenarios.
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 description does not elaborate on any of the four parameters (node_group, node, socket, value). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or usage details beyond the schema field names.
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 'Set geometry node input socket value' clearly specifies the action (set) and the resource (geometry node input socket value), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'link_geometry_nodes' (linking) or 'add_geometry_node' (adding).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as 'set_gn_modifier_input' or 'set_node_input'. There is no context about prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.