Capture the current Nuke comp state and return a snapshot ID for later diffing. Use before edits to track changes; stores up to five server-side snapshots.
Take a snapshot of the current comp state. Returns a snapshot_id you can pass to diff_comp later to see what changed.
Snapshots are stored server-side (max 5). Use before making changes.
| 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?
Adds behavioral context the annotations do not carry: snapshots live server-side, are capped at 5, and the call returns a snapshot_id. It does not explain eviction behavior once the cap is hit. Note the mild tension with readOnlyHint=true, since storing a snapshot writes server-side state, though the description does disclose that write explicitly rather than hiding it.
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, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the storage caveat and the timing advice. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential contract: what is captured, what comes back, where it is stored, and when to call it. Only the over-limit behavior and the scope (comp vs project) of the snapshot are left unstated.
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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly uses its space to describe the return value instead of inventing parameter detail.
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+resource ('Take a snapshot of the current comp state') and immediately distinguishes itself from its closest sibling by naming diff_comp as the consumer of the returned snapshot_id. An agent can tell snapshot_comp apart from diff_comp, scene_digest, and scene_delta without opening any schema.
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?
Gives explicit timing guidance ('Use before making changes') and routes the agent forward to diff_comp for comparison. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause (e.g. no need if you are only reading), so it is clear context rather than full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.