Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cook_frame_range

Cook a Houdini node across a frame range and report what changes on each frame, enabling frame-by-frame inspection of generated results.

Instructions

Cook a node frame by frame and report what changed on each frame.

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": "cook_frame_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo
stepNo
startNo
attribsNo
volumesNo
node_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never says whether cooking mutates the scene, blocks, cancels via cancel_top_cook, requires playback stopped, or how expensive it is; only the vague promise of reporting per-frame changes hints at behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no padding and a front-loaded verb, but it is terse to the point of under-specification given six undocumented parameters.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a six-parameter, unannotated, no-output-schema tool, one sentence is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what attribs or volumes do, what the per-frame report looks like, or how to bound the run.

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% across six parameters, so the description needed to compensate and does not. 'Frame by frame' loosely implies start/end/step, but attribs, volumes, and the required node_path are given no meaning at all.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Cook a node') plus a scope qualifier ('frame by frame') and an output behavior ('report what changed on each frame'). This distinguishes it reasonably from a single-node cook, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling cook_top_node.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over cook_top_node or get_cook_status, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the node must be display/render flagged), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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