Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_bounding_box

Retrieves the bounding box of a Houdini SOP node's geometry using its node path, enabling spatial extent checks for layout, alignment, and collision tasks.

Instructions

Get the bounding box of a SOP node's geometry.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_bounding_box"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 and provides only the bare 'get' framing. It does not state whether the box is in local or world space, whether it is axis-aligned, what happens if the node path is invalid or the SOP has no geometry, or whether it triggers a cook.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the key concept is front-loaded. It is not verbose, but its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter detail rather than reflecting deliberate economy.

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 explain what a bounding box result looks like (min/max corners, center/size, dimensionality), and it does not. For a geometry query tool with an undocumented path parameter and no annotations, too much is left 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% for the single node_path parameter, and the description does not compensate at all — it never mentions the path format, whether it is absolute (e.g. /obj/geo1/box1) or relative, or how a non-SOP node is handled. The only hint is the phrase 'SOP node'.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (bounding box) scoped to a SOP node's geometry, which distinguishes it from sibling geometry/info readers like get_geometry_info or get_cop_geometry. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 alternatives such as get_geometry_info, nor any prerequisites (does the node need to be cooked? does it apply only to polygonal SOPs?). The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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