Retrieve the LUT applied to a specific node on the clip at the playhead. Use node_index to select which node's LUT to fetch.
Get the LUT currently applied to a node on the clip at the playhead.
Args: node_index: Node index (1-based, default: 1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_index | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'currently applied' suggests no mutation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, failure cases (e.g., no LUT applied, invalid node index), or any access prerequisites.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed immediately by the parameter clarification. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema available, so the description is mostly sufficient. It could clarify what happens when no LUT is set or when the node index is invalid, but for a read-only query these are minor gaps.
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 input schema has no description for node_index)Skip, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that node_index is 1-based and defaults to 1, which is meaningful. It still leaves some ambiguity about what 'node' means, but the single parameter is largely covered.
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 precise read operation: get the LUT currently applied to a node on the clip at the playhead. This clearly distinguishes it from related operations like apply_lut or export_lut, which have different intents.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_apply_lut or resolve_export_lut. The reader must infer that this is the read-only counterpart to applying/exporting LUTs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.