Removes a specific input connection from a Nuke node using the node name and 0-based input index.
Disconnect a specific input on a node.
Args: node: node name. input_index: which input to disconnect (0-based).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | node name. | |
| input_index | Yes | which input to disconnect (0-based). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – it doesn't say what happens to the node after disconnect, whether downstream processing is affected, or what it returns.
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 definition is short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The Args block is technically redundant with the schema but is compact and 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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate to invoke correctly. It omits any behavioral consequence of disconnecting an input, which would have rounded it out.
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%, and the description merely restates the schema's own param descriptions verbatim (node name, 0-based input_index). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries full param documentation.
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 (disconnect) and resource (a specific input on a node), which cleanly separates it from the sibling connect_nodes. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, leaving that differentiation to inference.
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 guidance on when to use this versus connect_nodes, modify_node, or delete_node, and no prerequisites or context about the workflow state. The usage is only implied by the verb itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.