Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

edit_hda_interface

Modify an existing Houdini digital asset (HDA) interface in one atomic call, applying multiple interface operations together to avoid partial updates.

Instructions

Edit an existing HDA interface in one atomic call.

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>",
      "ops": "<ops>"
    },
    "name": "edit_hda_interface"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opsYes
dry_runNo
node_pathYes

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'In one atomic call' usefully discloses transactionality, but nothing is said about what an op does, whether edits are destructive or reversible, what happens on partial failure, or what the call returns.

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 wasted wording. Its brevity is clean structurally, though it borders on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 batch-edit mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, one sentence is far from sufficient. An agent cannot know the required op format or the effect of dry_run without trial and error.

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% across all three parameters, and the description says nothing about node_path, dry_run, or the ops array. The ops parameter is an array of unconstrained objects, so the absence of any shape or semantics for it is a serious 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing HDA interface') and adds that the edit is applied atomically. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling set_hda_interface, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to choose.

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?

The word 'existing' weakly implies this is not for creation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of set_hda_interface or set_hda_section_content as alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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