Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

clear_cache

Deletes cached files on disk for a specified cache node, optionally limited to a frame range, to free disk space and reset stale simulation data.

Instructions

Delete cached files on disk for a cache node.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node_path": "<node_path>"
    },
    "name": "clear_cache"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes
frame_rangeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: this destroys cached files on disk. It does not say whether deletion is reversible, what happens to a cache currently in use by a running cook, whether permissions are needed, or what is returned. The central destructive nature is conveyed, but supporting behavior is not.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the destructive action front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is short enough that useful detail was likely trimmed rather than the text being padded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves major gaps: the meaning of frame_range, node state requirements, and post-deletion expectations. It is adequate only as a one-line summary of intent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it barely does. 'for a cache node' loosely implies what node_path addresses, but frame_range is never hinted at — an agent cannot tell whether omitting it clears all frames or errors.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and object ('Delete cached files on disk') plus the scope ('for a cache node'), which separates it from siblings like get_cache_status and write_cache. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it contrasts with.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as a node being cooked or idle, and no statement about whether re-cooking is required afterward. The only usage signal is implicit in the verb 'Delete'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools