Generates a Roto or RotoPaint node on a chosen input node for rotoscoping or paint work in Nuke.
Create a Roto or RotoPaint node connected to the input.
Args: input_node: node to roto on top of. roto_type: Roto or RotoPaint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roto_type | No | Roto or RotoPaint. | Roto |
| input_node | Yes | node to roto on top of. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the rest. It does add one real behavioral fact: the new node is wired to the input. However it says nothing about what is returned, whether the node is auto-positioned, or any side effects on the existing comp.
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?
Two short sentences plus a brief args block; the purpose is front-loaded in the first clause. The args restatement is mildly redundant but harmless.
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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves open what the tool returns (node name/handle) and how it relates to the generic create_node sibling. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema with the same wording the description repeats. The description adds no format, allowed-value, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 and resource ('Create a Roto or RotoPaint node') plus the key structural behavior (connected to the input), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like create_node or setup_precomp. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer when a plain node would do.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative create_node, which also creates nodes. The agent must infer that this tool is the specialized path for roto/paint nodes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.