nuke-mcp

by hramirezedc

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

connect_node

Connects a source node to a selected input of a Nuke node, or disconnects the input when source is left empty.

Instructions

Connect source to input number input of node (0 is the main input). Leave source empty to disconnect.

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": {
      "node": "<node>"
    },
    "name": "connect_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	auto
`node`	Yes
`input`	No
`script`	No
`source`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare that this mutates state (readOnlyHint=false) but is non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: an empty `source` means disconnect rather than no-op. It leaves out whether connecting overwrites an existing link, whether the change is undoable, and what errors occur on an invalid node.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the parameter roles, followed by the inverse case. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 described. However, for a five-parameter mutation tool with zero schema documentation, the description should cover the `mode` and `script` parameters and note whether an input already connected is replaced.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains `node`, `input` (with the 0 = main input default), and `source` (empty = disconnect). It says nothing about `mode` (auto/live/headless) or `script`, leaving two of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Connect', with `node`/`input`/`source` roles) and explains the inverse operation (disconnect). It is clearly distinguishable from creation or deletion siblings, though it never names an alternative tool for the opposite direction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 'Leave `source` empty to disconnect' gives real usage guidance for one mode of the tool. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not context, no mention that an existing connection on that input may be replaced, and no routing to siblings.

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

Deploy Server