Inochi Creator MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

creator_create_node

Create a node of a specified type under a parent to add elements to an Inochi scene. Supports Node, Composite, MeshGroup, SimplePhysics, and Camera types.

Instructions

Create a node under a parent. Types match the Nodes panel Add menu: Node, Composite, MeshGroup, SimplePhysics, Camera. Parts must be created via creator_import_images.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "creator_create_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Optional node name
`type`	Yes	Node type to create
`parent_uuid`	No	Parent UUID; defaults to root

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the create operation and adds a useful constraint (parts must be imported), but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens on failure. This is acceptable for a simple create tool but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence provides essential information. No redundant or vague language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 params, one enum, and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual aspects: what it does, the allowed types, and the critical exception about parts. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely echoes the enum values and the parent/root context already present in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a node') and the resource ('under a parent'), and explicitly lists the valid node types. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that parts must be created via creator_import_images, preventing confusion with import tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives context for when to use the tool (to create nodes of the listed types) and explicitly excludes parts by redirecting to creator_import_images. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server