Retrieve the LUT applied to a specified node in DaVinci Resolve's color page.
Read the LUT applied to a node.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "lut_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_index | No | ||
| item_handle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Read' which implies a non-destructive operation, but lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides minimal insight beyond the operation's nature.
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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness, making it efficient but under-specified.
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 the absence of annotations and output schema, and two parameters without description, the description is insufficiently complete. It covers only the basic purpose but fails to detail inputs or expected behavior, leaving gaps for the agent.
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?
The description does not explain any parameters. Despite the schema having two parameters (node_index, item_handle) with zero description coverage, the description adds no meaning to them, leaving the agent to infer usage from names alone.
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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'LUT applied to a node', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lut_apply or lut_refresh which perform different actions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any context. No usage scenarios or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.