List all Nuke skill profiles with descriptions, tool counts, and loaded state so you can pick one to load and make its tools available at runtime.
List every skill profile with its description, tool count, and current-loaded state.
Pass the returned name to load_profile to surface the
profile's tools at runtime. Profiles already in loaded=True
are visible right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context by explaining what the loaded flag means at runtime. It stops short of covering return ordering or any scale/pagination behavior, which is why it is not a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its outputs, then the follow-up call, then the state semantics. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so explicitly (description, tool count, loaded state). An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.
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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description discusses the returned name field rather than inputs, which is appropriate since there is nothing to disambiguate on the input side.
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 ("List every skill profile") and enumerates the returned fields (description, tool count, loaded state). It is clearly separable from sibling listers like list_precomps, list_channels, and list_nodes, and it names load_profile as the downstream consumer.
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 second sentence gives explicit routing: take the returned name and pass it to load_profile, plus the condition that loaded=True profiles are already visible. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the discover-then-load workflow is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.