Add a shader node to a Blender material by specifying node type, inputs, and location for shader graph setup.
Add a shader node to a material.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the node; used to reference it in connect_nodes | |
| inputs | No | Default values for unlinked inputs, keyed by socket name, e.g. {"Scale": 12.0} | |
| location | No | [x, y] position in the shader editor | |
| material | Yes | ||
| node_type | Yes | Which shader node to add |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Add') with no mention of side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens if the node_type is invalid. It also doesn't describe the return value or whether the node is automatically linked to the material's output.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (2 required), a 23-option enum, and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain how name, inputs, or location affect the node, nor does it provide context on node relationships or typical workflows. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.
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 adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), and the description doesn't compensate for the missing material parameter description or clarify the enum values, it fails to add value beyond the schema.
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 (Add) and the target (a shader node to a material). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like create_material (creates the material itself) and create_image_texture_node (adds a specific node type), though it doesn't explicitly mention the node_type parameter that selects the kind of node.
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 like set_node_inputs, connect_nodes, or delete_node. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether a material must already exist, or when to prefer this over more specific node-creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.