Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_chop_data

Retrieve CHOP node track data from Houdini by node path, optionally filtering by channel name and start/end indices.

Instructions

Get CHOP node track data.

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_chop_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo
startNo
node_pathYes
channel_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about error behavior for invalid node paths, whether the node must be cooked, what time/sample semantics apply, or what the return payload looks like. For a data-extraction tool with four undocumented parameters this is a serious gap.

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 short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is good, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure to guide a reader toward the required parameter or optional filters.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description would need to do substantial work and does not. An agent can guess this is a read of CHOP channel data but cannot confidently construct a correct call.

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%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters. It never explains that node_path is required, nor what channel_name filtering does, nor what units start/end use (frames vs samples) or their defaults of null.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a verb ("Get") and a resource ("CHOP node track data"), so the general operation is inferable, but "track data" is undefined and could mean channels, samples, or timing. It offers no differentiation from siblings like list_chop_channels, leaving the agent to guess what distinguishes this retrieval from channel enumeration.

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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the node must be cooked), and no exclusions. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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