Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nuke-mcp

nuke-mcp

by hramirezedc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_node

Read-only

Retrieve a Nuke node's inputs, dependents, and non-default knobs to inspect its connections and settings; optionally include all knobs.

Instructions

One node's inputs, dependents and knobs. By default only knobs that differ from their default are listed.

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": "get_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoauto
nodeYes
scriptNo
all_knobsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one useful behavioral detail beyond that: knobs identical to their default are omitted unless requested, which matters for interpreting results.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its limited budget on the knob filter while omitting the more consequential mode parameter.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return formatting is covered, but four parameters at 0% schema coverage with an unexplained mode enum leave the agent guessing about invocation semantics, which is inadequate for a tool of this shape.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It explains only the all_knobs default-filtering behavior; the mode enum (auto/live/headless), node, and script parameters are left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names the resource (a single node) and enumerates exactly what is returned: inputs, dependents, and knobs. It is clearly a per-node detail read, distinguishable from a listing tool like list_nodes, though the verb itself is only implied by "One node's".

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit statement of when to use this versus siblings such as list_nodes, get_script_info, or get_app_info. The only guidance-like content is the default filtering behavior of knobs, which is a parameter hint rather than usage direction.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools