Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_attribute_info

Retrieve metadata for a Houdini geometry attribute by node path and attribute name to inspect its type and properties before building workflows.

Instructions

Get metadata for a geometry attribute.

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>",
      "attrib_name": "<attrib_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_attribute_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes
attrib_nameYes
attrib_classNopoint

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 behavioral burden, yet it only says "metadata." It does not say what metadata is returned (type, size, class, tuple size), whether missing node paths or attribute names error out, or what happens when attrib_class is omitted beyond the schema default.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is good. But at this length it omits nearly everything the agent needs, so the terseness reads as under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the returned metadata fields, and it does not. For a three-parameter lookup with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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%, so the description must explain the three parameters, and it explains none of them. The titles "Node Path", "Attrib Name", and "Attrib Class" (default "point") are the only hints, and nothing clarifies expected path syntax or valid class values such as point/vertex/primitive/detail.

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?

"Get metadata for a geometry attribute" names a specific verb and resource, so an agent knows this is a read of attribute descriptors rather than values. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings such as get_attrib_values or get_attrib_stats, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no mention of an alternative tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the descriptor lookup rather than the value or statistics lookups.

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