Attach a material to a geometry node by creating a Material SOP using the target geometry path and material path.
Assign a material to a geometry node via a Material SOP.
Args: geo_path: Target geometry node path. material_path: Material to assign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geo_path | Yes | ||
| material_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.24.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether a new Material SOP node is created, what happens if the target already has a material, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission/error behavior. For a scene-mutating tool this is a substantial gap.
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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is compact with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the param lines are so terse they add little value.
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?
A mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and effectively undocumented parameters needs to explain side effects, prerequisites, and failure modes. The description stops at what it does, leaving an agent unable to predict the result of the call.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it barely does: 'Target geometry node path' and 'Material to assign' essentially restate the parameter names. No path format (absolute vs relative, node-type expectations) or validation semantics are given.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource (assign a material to a geometry node) and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_material or list_materials. The phrase 'via a Material SOP' adds a hint of mechanism but is ambiguous about whether it creates a new node or reuses an existing one.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., does the material need to exist first?), and no routing to alternatives such as get_usd_bound_material for reading an existing assignment. The agent is left to infer context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.