Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_parm_template_tree

Returns a Houdini node's parameter interface as a tree of folders and parameters, letting MCP clients inspect control layout and available parameters for a context or type.

Instructions

Return the parameter interface as a tree of folders and parameters.

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_parm_template_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderNo
contextNoSop
node_pathNo
type_nameNo
max_entriesNo
include_tagsNo

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a tree but does not clarify whether it is read-only, how max_entries limits results, what context values mean, or how folder filtering behaves.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted wording. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being optimally informative for a six-parameter tool.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain defaults, parameter effects, or return structure sufficiently for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. It gives no meaning for folder, context, node_path, type_name, max_entries, or include_tags, leaving all parameter semantics undocumented.

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 ('Return') and resource ('parameter interface') and specifies the output shape as a tree of folders and parameters. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools such as get_parm_references.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. It also omits any prerequisites or context about which situations call for a parameter template tree.

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