Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_usd_attributes

Read the same USD attributes across multiple prims and return them as one table for quick comparison and inspection.

Instructions

Read the same attributes across many prims as one table.

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>",
      "prims": "<prims>"
    },
    "name": "get_usd_attributes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNo
timeNo
limitNo
primsYes
node_pathYes
prim_typeNo
attr_patternsNo
relationshipsNo
traverse_instance_proxiesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and 'as one table' hints at the result shape, but nothing is said about the default limit of 500 or truncation, time-sampling behavior, or how unreadable prims are reported.

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 filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tightness. Nothing in it is wasteful, yet much is missing.

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 9-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is well short of what an agent needs. Defaults such as limit=500 and relationships=true are behaviorally significant and go unmentioned.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only loosely gestures at 'prims' and 'attributes', leaving node_path, attr_patterns, prim_type, full, time, limit, relationships, and traverse_instance_proxies entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read ... attributes') plus a scope qualifier ('across many prims as one table') that implicitly separates it from the singular get_usd_attribute sibling. The batch-versus-single distinction is conveyed, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no named alternative. The phrase 'across many prims' hints at batch use but leaves the agent to infer the boundary against get_usd_attribute or get_attrib_values.

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