Creates a bin in a Hiero/Nuke Studio project and automatically adds any missing parent bins, so nested paths like Footage/Day1 can be set up in one step.
Create a bin, including any missing parent bins (e.g. "Footage/Day1").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | ||
| bin_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive mutation in a closed world. The description usefully adds that intermediate parent bins are created, which is real behavioral information beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about duplicate/existing bin handling or which project the bin lands in.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the parent-creation behavior and a concrete example front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though one more clause on project scoping would have been cheap.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core creation behavior is covered. But with 0% schema coverage and an unexplained project param, plus no existing-bin behavior, the definition is only adequate for this two-parameter mutation.
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 must carry the load. It gives a helpful hierarchical path example for bin_path ("Footage/Day1"), but the project parameter is never explained — whether null means the active project is left entirely to inference.
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 and resource (create a bin) and adds the notable scope detail that missing parent bins are created too, with a path example. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling creation tools like create_sequence or new_project, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this versus other creation tools, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a project must be open or the project argument matters), and no note on behavior when the bin already exists. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.