Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_hda_info

Retrieve detailed metadata and structure for a Houdini Digital Asset definition by specifying its file, node path, or type name.

Instructions

Get detailed information about an HDA definition.

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_hda_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hda_fileNo
node_pathNo
type_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare verb. It does not confirm this is a read-only lookup, does not describe what happens when hda_file, node_path, or type_name are omitted, and does not hint at error behavior for unresolved HDAs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, so structure is fine. The brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than efficient communication, since key information is simply absent.

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 three undocumented optional parameters, the definition leaves the agent without enough to invoke the tool reliably. A lookup tool with multiple optional selectors needs at least an explanation of which identifier form to use.

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?

Three parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It gives no indication of what hda_file, node_path, and type_name mean, whether they are mutually exclusive lookup modes, or how precedence works when several are supplied — a critical ambiguity the description entirely fails to resolve.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about an HDA definition'), which is better than a tautology. However, 'detailed information' is vague about what is actually returned, and the description does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings like get_hda_sections, get_hda_section_content, or get_node_info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as get_hda_sections for section-level data. An agent must guess 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