get_nodeFetches details for a single Houdini node, including its type, parameters, inputs, outputs, and children, so agents can inspect scene structure before making edits.
Fetch details for one node: type, parms, inputs, outputs, children.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what details are returned, but it does not explain path requirements, error behavior for missing nodes, or other operational traits beyond the annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the action and the returned fields efficiently.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in depth, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented, the description should at least clarify the path parameter and when to use this tool versus list_nodes.
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% and the single required parameter, path, is not explained in the description. The description says details are fetched for "one node" but does not clarify that path identifies the node, what format it takes, or how to obtain it.
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 uses a specific verb ("Fetch") and resource ("one node") and enumerates the returned details: type, parms, inputs, outputs, children. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_nodes by specifying a single node, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools.
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 phrase "for one node" implies this tool is for retrieving details about a single known node, which suggests usage versus a listing tool. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_nodes or get_scene_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.