Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_light_rig

Generate a preset lighting rig in a Houdini LOP network with configurable preset, parent path, and intensity multiplier for scene lighting setup.

Instructions

Create a preset lighting rig in a LOP network.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_light_rig"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
presetNothree_point
parent_pathNo/stage
intensity_multNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say what nodes the rig creates, whether it is additive or replaces existing lights at parent_path, whether it is reversible, or what permissions/state are required. 'Create' implies mutation but no side effects are characterized.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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 three-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what a 'preset' is, what the rig will contain, or what the call affects in the scene graph.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters. An agent learns nothing about the accepted values of 'preset' (only the default 'three_point' is visible in the schema), what 'parent_path' must point to, or what scale 'intensity_mult' operates on.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a preset lighting rig') and scopes it to 'a LOP network', so an agent knows the operation and the context it applies to. It does not name or contrast with the nearby sibling create_light, so the boundary between a single light and a rig is left to inference.

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 (does the LOP network need to exist at parent_path?), and no steering toward create_light or set_light_properties. The agent must guess whether this is the right tool for a given lighting task.

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