nuke-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_node

Creates Nuke nodes such as Blur, Grade, Read, or Write with optional names, knob values, and input links; places nodes under their first input unless a position is set.

Instructions

Create a node (e.g. "Blur", "Grade", "Read", "Write") with optional name, knob values and input node names.

Without `position` the node is placed under its first input. Headless runs save the script afterwards.

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_class": "<node_class>"
    },
    "name": "create_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	auto
`name`	No
`knobs`	No
`inputs`	No
`script`	No
`position`	No
`node_class`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real behavioural detail beyond them: default placement under the first input when `position` is omitted, and an implicit script save during headless runs. That side effect is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before calling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The create action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by two short sentences that each add distinct information. No filler, though the parenthetical examples and the trailing headless note could be slightly tighter.

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 no coverage, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a 7-parameter creation tool the description leaves the mode/script parameters and the headless mutation implication under-explained, which is a meaningful gap for a write operation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden and does partially compensate — clarifying that `name`, `knobs` and `inputs` are optional and that `position` controls placement. However `mode` (enum auto/live/headless), `script`, and `node_class` receive no explanation, so a third of the parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — "Create a node" — and grounds it with concrete examples ("Blur", "Grade", "Read", "Write"), so the agent knows exactly what gets produced. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like connect_node or set_knobs, which keeps it below a 5.

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 description hints at context ("Headless runs save the script afterwards", placement behaviour), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and does not name alternatives such as connect_node for wiring existing nodes. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server