Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_material_network

Creates a new material network in Houdini's /mat context with a specified name and optional shader type.

Instructions

Create a new material network in /mat.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_material_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
paramsNo
shader_typeNoprincipled

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the network is selected/activated afterward, what side effects occur, or what fails if a network of that name exists. The mention of the '/mat' parent is the only behavioral context provided.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though it reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description should explain parameter meaning and creation side effects. None of that is present, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it beyond passing a name.

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% for three parameters, and the description explains none of them: 'name', 'params', and 'shader_type' (default 'principled') are left entirely undefined, including what a params object may contain. This is a complete gap, not a partial one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new material network") plus the target context "/mat", so the agent knows it makes a container network rather than a material. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as create_material or build_network, leaving that inference to the caller.

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 guidance on when to use this versus create_material, build_network, or create_network_box, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only usable signal is the implied '/mat' location.

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