Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_dop_field

Read a specific field value from a DOP record by specifying the node path, object name, data path, and field name.

Instructions

Read a specific field value from a DOP record.

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>",
      "object_name": "<object_name>",
      "data_path": "<data_path>",
      "field_name": "<field_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_dop_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
data_pathYes
node_pathYes
field_nameYes
object_nameYes

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether the call is read-only, what happens when the field or record does not exist, whether the field must be cooked/evaluated at the current frame, or what form the value takes on return.

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?

One short sentence with the key information front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently worded, though efficiency here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

For a four-required-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent has no way to know how to construct the path arguments or interpret a returned field value.

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 required parameters, and the description explains none of them. The distinction between node_path, object_name, and data_path is genuinely ambiguous in a Houdini DOP context and would need the description to clarify, but it provides no such meaning.

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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource: read a specific field value from a DOP record. That is enough to distinguish it from obvious siblings like list_dop_objects or get_dop_relationships, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use when several read paths exist.

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 get_dop_object or get_attrib_values, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid DOP network context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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