Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_failed_work_items

Lists failed work items on a TOP node and returns the tail of each log for quick failure diagnosis.

Instructions

List the work items that failed on a TOP node, with the tail of each log.

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_failed_work_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
node_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-style listing and that logs come back as a tail, but it never says what a "tail" means (line count or byte bound), whether the limit applies to items or logs, or what happens when the node path is invalid or has no failures.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key subject (failed work items) is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse for the amount of undocumented behavior, but there is no wasted wording.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, the description is the only documentation. It partially compensates by describing the returned log tail, but leaves the required node_path format and the limit's semantics unexplained for a tool agents will routinely need to call correctly.

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 two parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints that node_path refers to a TOP node and says nothing about expected path format, nor does it mention the limit parameter or how it interacts with the per-item log tail.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("List the work items that failed") scoped to a TOP node, and adds the notable payload detail of including each log's tail. It does not name or differentiate from plausible siblings such as dirty_work_items, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "failed on a TOP node" implies the situation in which to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative for related queries like dirty work items or general work item info. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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