list_nodesList child nodes under a Houdini scene path, or set recursive to walk all descendants. Use it to inspect scene hierarchy and discover nodes before editing parameters or connections.
List child nodes under a parent path. Set recursive=true to walk descendants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | /obj | |
| recursive | No |
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the depth-traversal behavior of recursive, which is useful. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens with an invalid path, though an output schema exists so return shape need not be explained.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the optional modifier. Near-optimal size, though the description is arguably too terse given the 0% schema coverage.
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?
The tool is simple (2 optional params), annotations cover safety, and an output schema covers return values, so the essentials are present. Gaps remain around path format/default and traversal cost for recursive on large trees, which an agent would need before invoking confidently.
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 does explain that recursive walks descendants, which is meaningful beyond the bare boolean title. But it does not clarify that 'path' is the parent container, nor does it mention the default '/obj' or the accepted path format, leaving one of two parameters underexplained.
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 concrete verb and resource: 'List child nodes under a parent path', which distinguishes it from get_node (single node) and list_node_types (types rather than instances). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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 second sentence gives a clear conditional ('Set recursive=true to walk descendants'), which is real usage guidance for the recursive mode. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_node, search, or list_node_types, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.