Retrieve CHOP node track data by node path, with optional channel name and sample range. Get specific channel values for analysis or further processing.
Get CHOP node track data.
Args: node_path: CHOP node path. channel_name: Specific channel to retrieve. start: Start sample index. end: End sample index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| node_path | Yes | ||
| channel_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral context. It does not mention return format, behavior when optional parameters like channel_name or start/end are null, whether it returns all channels by default, or any error conditions. This is a minimal description that adds little beyond the tool's name and parameter list.
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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clean parameter list. There is no redundant prose, and it earns its length for a simple read operation.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It lacks return-value details, default behavior for optional parameters, and any guidance on valid CHOP node paths or sample-index constraints, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.
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 is responsible for explaining parameters. It does add brief semantics for all four parameters ('CHOP node path', 'Specific channel to retrieve', 'Start sample index', 'End sample index'), but it omits defaults, inclusivity, and how null values behave. This is adequate but not thorough.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Get CHOP node track data.' This makes the tool's core function clear and distinguishes it from CHOP-related siblings like create_chop_node or list_chop_channels, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_chop_channels, get_keyframes, or export_chop_to_parm. The description only states what the tool does and lists parameters, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.