Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_dop_object

Retrieves detailed data for a specific DOP object by node path and object name, so you can inspect dynamics objects in Houdini.

Instructions

Get detailed data for a specific DOP object.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_dop_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes
object_nameYes

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 supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read via the verb "Get." It says nothing about permissions, error behavior when a node path or object name is invalid, or what shape the returned data takes.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency, leaving core questions unanswered.

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 tool with two required, undocumented parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain how node_path and object_name identify the target and what kind of detail is returned.

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 two required parameters (node_path and object_name) are documented nowhere. The description's phrase "specific DOP object" hints at object_name but leaves node_path's role and format entirely unexplained.

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?

"Get detailed data for a specific DOP object" names a verb and resource, so the broad purpose is graspable. But "detailed data" is vague about what is actually returned, and nothing distinguishes it from DOP siblings such as get_dop_field or get_dop_relationships.

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 indication of when to prefer get_dop_field or get_dop_relationships, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. The agent must infer the selection criteria 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