Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_network_box

Draw a titled box around selected nodes to document a Houdini graph. Use it to visually group and label networks for clearer graph organization.

Instructions

Draw a titled network box around nodes, to document a graph you built.

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": {
      "parent_path": "<parent_path>"
    },
    "name": "create_network_box"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colorNo
commentNo
node_pathsNo
parent_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never says this creates/mutates scene state, what permissions or current-network context are required, or whether an existing box is replaced. Only the bare outcome is described.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of the tool name. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter mutation tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Given a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the definition leaves out too much an agent needs: required context, parameter meanings, and side effects.

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. The description vaguely maps "titled" and "around nodes" to comment/node_paths, but adds nothing about parent_path or color and gives no format or semantics for any of them, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Draw a titled network box around nodes") plus an intent ("to document a graph you built"), which is enough to distinguish it from listing tools like list_network_boxes. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with, so it stops 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase "to document a graph you built" implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. the network must exist), and no pointer to alternatives such as create_sticky_note for annotation.

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