Skip to main content
Glama

读取指定节点

pavo_get_node
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads a Pavo canvas node by its real node key, parsing data stored as either a string or object. Use it to retrieve exact node content for inspection or processing.

Instructions

按真实node_key读取节点,并解析字符串或对象形式的data。

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": {
      "project_uuid": "<project_uuid>",
      "canvas_uuid": "<canvas_uuid>",
      "node_key": "<node_key>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_get_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_keyYes
canvas_uuidYes
project_uuidYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral note, that data may arrive as a string or object and gets parsed, but says nothing about error behavior when the node_key is invalid or about project/canvas scoping requirements.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence that leads with the core action and then the data-parsing behavior. No filler, though its brevity is part of why semantics are thin.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, three required identifiers at 0% schema coverage are undocumented, and the description never explains how project_uuid/canvas_uuid scope the lookup, leaving real gaps for a multi-tenant retrieval tool.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all three parameters rely on the description for meaning. Only node_key gets any elaboration ('real' key vs display value), while project_uuid and canvas_uuid are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb (读取) plus resource (节点) and narrows the lookup to the 'real node_key', which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as pavo_list_nodes. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (project/canvas scope), and no pointer to alternatives like pavo_list_nodes or pavo_get_operation. The only implicit signal is that this fetches a single node by its real key.

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