Push a data tree into a Grasshopper component input by specifying branches as path-value pairs. Set the component ID, input index, and branch data to update the definition.
Push a DataTree into a 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?
With only readOnlyHint=false provided by annotations, the description must disclose more behavioral context, but it only says 'Push' without explaining effects such as overwriting existing input, triggering recomputation, or failure behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description adds little beyond signaling a write operation.
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, fluff-free sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with a complex nested schema, so the brevity is closer to incompleteness than to effective conciseness.
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 tool that pushes structured data-tree branches into a component input, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits how branches/paths/values are structured, which component fields are needed, and how this relates to sibling set/get batch tools. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing operational 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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not explain component_id, branches, or input parameters. The term 'DataTree' and 'component input' map only loosely to the nested schema fields, leaving the agent to infer the exact required structure.
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 a specific action ('Push') and resource ('a DataTree') into a component input, so an agent can understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like gh_data_tree_set_batch or gh_data_tree_get, but the write direction and component-input target are clear.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gh_data_tree_set_batch, gh_data_tree_get, or gh_set_parameter. The description provides no context about prerequisites, single-component scope, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.