Create a wire from a source Grasshopper component's output to a target component's input. Provide component GUIDs and output/input names or indices to establish the connection.
Create a wire from one component output to another component input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a modification but does not disclose any side effects, failure conditions, or requirements such as the existence of the components or parameter types. It adds little beyond the readOnlyHint annotation.
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 description is a single, clear sentence that immediately states the purpose without any extraneous information.
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?
The description is minimal and lacks context about the Grasshopper environment, the requirement that the components and parameters exist, and the effect on the definition. It is complete enough for an expert but not for a general user.
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 description does not explain the parameters, but the schema's property descriptions (e.g., 'Input name or zero-based index.') cover their meanings. Since the schema handles this, the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable, but it adds no additional value.
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?
The description clearly states the action and object, 'Create a wire from one component output to another component input,' which specifically distinguishes it from other tools like adding or deleting components.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gh_connect_many or gh_add_component. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.