Change a node's color in the network editor with RGB values to visually organize or highlight it.
Set a node's color in the network editor.
Args: ctx: MCP context. node_path: Node path. r: Red (0.0-1.0). g: Green (0.0-1.0). b: Blue (0.0-1.0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | Yes | ||
| g | Yes | ||
| r | Yes | ||
| node_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. 'Set a node's color in the network editor' implies a cosmetic, likely non-destructive mutation, but it says nothing about persistence, undo behavior, required context, or what happens if the node_path is invalid.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact args list; nothing is padded. The 'ctx: MCP context' line is boilerplate but harmless and brief.
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?
For a 4-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters adequately but leaves behavioral gaps: no indication of effect scope (viewport display only vs. saved state) or error conditions. Minimum viable, but not complete.
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 coverage is 0% (params only have titles 'R', 'G', 'B'), yet the description documents all four parameters and adds the crucial 0.0-1.0 range for the RGB channels, which the schema omits. It adds real meaning, though node_path remains described only as 'Node path' with no format guidance.
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?
States a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a node's color') scoped to the network editor, which cleanly separates it from visual siblings like set_node_flags or set_node_position. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the node must exist in the current network), and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.