Switch the viewer's display LUT or colorspace to match your project's color pipeline for accurate compositing.
Switch the viewer's display LUT/colorspace.
Args: lut: LUT or colorspace name (e.g. 'sRGB', 'Cineon', 'None').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lut | Yes | LUT or colorspace name (e.g. 'sRGB', 'Cineon', 'None'). |
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 safety profile is covered. Description adds that it changes the viewer display, but doesn't disclose whether the change persists across sessions, affects all open viewers, or requires a valid node context. With annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences: one-line purpose followed by a clearly labeled Args section. Zero waste, front-loaded, appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.
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 no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials. However, it omits behavioral details like whether the LUT change is persistent, what happens with invalid LUT names, or how it interacts with view_node or load_profile, which could matter in a complex compositing context.
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 the schema already fully documents the 'lut' parameter. Description repeats the schema exactly with no additional semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, default value behavior, valid values beyond examples). Baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (switch) and resource (viewer's display LUT/colorspace). Clear what it does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like set_knob or get_knob which could also affect viewer settings.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives named. The purpose is clear enough that usage is implied (use to change viewer LUT), but the description doesn't help an agent choose between this and other viewer/knob tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.