Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

copy_node

Copies a node in Houdini and optionally places it in a different parent network, allowing an offset and a new name.

Instructions

Copy a node, optionally into a different parent network.

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": "copy_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNo
new_nameNo
node_pathYes
dest_parentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing beyond the basic action. It omits whether the new node is placed at the original position, how name collisions are handled, what identifier is returned for the copy, and whether any permissions or side effects apply.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier is placed immediately after the core action. Nothing is redundant or 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 four-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no documented parameters, and no output schema, one sentence is far from sufficient. An agent cannot learn what the copy returns or how offset and new_name behave without trial and error.

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 four parameters, and the description only gestures at dest_parent ('different parent network'). node_path, new_name, and especially offset are completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the inputs opaque.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Copy a node') and adds a scope note about the destination parent network, so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish this from lookalike siblings such as move_node or create_node, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'optionally into a different parent network' hints at one use case but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like move_node or rename_node. An agent must infer from names alone whether copy or move is the right operation.

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