Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_file_references

Lists every file path referenced by a Houdini scene, with an option to show only missing files. Use it to audit dependencies and find broken asset links.

Instructions

Return every file path the scene references.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_file_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_missing_onlyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about whether paths are resolved or absolute, whether missing/unresolvable files are included, or what the cost is of scanning the whole scene. For a no-annotation tool this leaves important behavioral questions unanswered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding or filler. It is terse but well-formed; the weakness is under-specification rather than verbosity, which is scored elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, a one-liner can be adequate, but the undefined filtering parameter and the unsignalled 'every vs. missing-only' distinction leave a real gap. The description does not say what the return shape is beyond 'file paths', nor how the parameter changes it.

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 description must compensate and does not. The sole parameter 'include_missing_only' is never mentioned, and the description's claim of returning 'every file path' actively conflicts with a filter that restricts output to missing files only.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Return every file path the scene references.' It is clear what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_parm_references', which an agent could plausibly confuse with this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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 call this instead of 'get_parm_references' or the export/import siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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