Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_spare_parameters

Creates multiple spare parameters on a Houdini node, optionally grouped in a folder tab, to add custom controls.

Instructions

Create multiple spare parameters, optionally in a folder tab.

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>",
      "parameters": "<parameters>"
    },
    "name": "create_spare_parameters"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes
parametersYes
folder_nameNo
folder_typeNoTabs

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?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and falls well short. It does not say that this mutates the node at node_path, what happens if a spare parameter of the same name already exists, whether the call is atomic across the whole batch, or what a failure returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, brevity here crosses into under-specification for a four-parameter mutation tool, so the size is not fully appropriate to the complexity.

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 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an untyped nested array element schema, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess. It is not complete enough to invoke correctly 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% for four parameters, so nothing explains node_path, folder_name ('Tabs' by default), or the shape of entries in the parameters array (which accepts arbitrary objects with additionalProperties). The description only vaguely echoes 'parameters' and 'folder tab', adding no meaning beyond the field names.

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 multiple spare parameters', and adds the optional folder-tab scoping. 'Multiple' implicitly separates it from the singular sibling create_spare_parameter, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives no guidance on when to pick this over create_spare_parameter, get_parameters, or set_parameters. The only usage hint is 'optionally in a folder tab', which implies folder_name usage but states no condition or prerequisite for it.

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