Skip to main content
Glama

batch

Destructive

Run multiple Houdini operations in one call to build node networks, wire nodes, and set parameters in one undo group; validate steps first and roll back on failure.

Instructions

Run several Houdini tools in one call.

Use it to build a network: many nodes, their wires and their parameters go
in one round trip and one undo group, and a person can undo the whole thing
with one keystroke.

Do not use it when a later step needs to read what an earlier step made.
The list runs without you in the middle, so nothing can branch on a result.
A path is the exception: give a step an `id`, and a later step writes
"$<id>" where it needs the path of the node that step made. So a network of
default node names (box1, attribwrangle3) needs no guess of the name.

A failed batch changes nothing. Every step is checked before any step
runs, and a step with a wrong argument stops the batch. A step that fails
as it runs stops the list, and the steps before it are undone. A step whose
item failed is a failed step, and so is a parameter write that did not
apply. The error names the index of the step and its error.

Returns JSON with one result for each operation, in the order of the
operations, and the picture of every capture step.

A batch that works cooks the display node of each SOP network that it
touched: `check` gives its point and primitive counts, and the touched
nodes that have errors. Read it before you build on the result.

A capture step with no `output` writes to a file of its own, so one batch
can hold several captures.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operationsYesThe steps, in order. Each is {"tool": "<tool name>", "params": {...}}, with the arguments that the tool takes on its own. Any tool of this server except batch. Add "id": "name" to a step, and a later step can write "$name" (or "$name/child") for the node path that step returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / operations / description
      Previous value: -"The steps, in order. Each is {\"tool\": \"<tool name>\", \"params\": {...}}, with the arguments that the tool takes on its own. Any tool of this server except batch."New value: +"The steps, in order. Each is {\"tool\": \"<tool name>\", \"params\": {...}}, with the arguments that the tool takes on its own. Any tool of this server except batch. Add \"id\": \"name\" to a step, and a later step can write \"$name\" (or \"$name/child\") for the node path that step returned."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.7.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / operations / description
      Added value: +"The steps, in order. Each is {\"tool\": \"<tool name>\", \"params\": {...}}, with the arguments that the tool takes on its own. Any tool of this server except batch."
    • removedInput schema / properties / operations / title
      Removed value: -"Operations"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"toolArguments"
  3. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / operations / default
      Removed value: -[]
    • addedInput schema / properties / operations / items / additionalProperties
      Added value: +true
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "operations"
      +]
    • changedInput schema / title
      Previous value: -"batchArguments"New value: +"toolArguments"
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent already knows this mutates state; the description adds substantial context on top: atomicity ("A failed batch changes nothing", full pre-validation), rollback semantics (prior steps undone when a later step fails), one-undo-group behavior, and cooking of display nodes. It also notes that a capture step with no output writes its own file, which is a real side effect an agent must anticipate.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and the key exclusion are front-loaded, and every paragraph carries different information (undo grouping, no mid-list branching, atomicity, return shape, cooking). Some sentences are wordier than necessary ("...and a person can undo the whole thing with one keystroke"), and the paragraph on failure modes is dense loop-prone prose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract itself: one result per operation in order, plus the picture of every capture step, plus the cooked display node's point/primitive counts and touched nodes with errors, and advice to read that before building on the result. Failure reporting (error names the step index and its error) and the multi-capture case are also covered, which is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the schema already documents the shape, but the description adds real semantics: ordering, the rule that any server tool except batch is allowed, and how id/"$id" (or "$id/child") lets a later step consume an earlier step's node path instead of guessing names. It doesn't add argument-level detail for the individual sub-tools, which is appropriately left to them.

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?

"Run several Houdini tools in one call" names a specific verb and resource, and the description immediately frames the scope (many nodes, wires and parameters in one round trip and one undo group). It is unmistakably distinct from the single-purpose siblings like node_edit, cook or parm_set.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives a positive use case (build a network), an explicit exclusion ("Do not use it when a later step needs to read what an earlier step made"), and the reason (the list runs without the agent in the middle, so nothing can branch on a result). It also spells out the one exception, the id/"$<id>" path substitution, so the agent can decide between batching and sequential calls.

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