Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_usd_material_textures

Lists every asset-valued input for each USD material in Houdini, helping you inspect texture and file references by node path.

Instructions

List every asset-valued input of each USD material.

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_usd_material_textures"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes
root_pathNo/
include_prototypesNo
traverse_instance_proxiesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether it recurses from root_path, how missing/unresolved asset paths are reported, whether it requires an open stage, or what the response shape looks like. Only the core 'lists textures per material' behavior is conveyed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise to the point of under-specification rather than verbosity, 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?

For a four-parameter traversal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot determine scoping semantics or return values well enough to call it confidently.

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 four parameters, and the description only vaguely implies node_path is the material prim to inspect. root_path, include_prototypes, and traverse_instance_proxies are left completely undefined in both schema and description, which is a serious gap for a traversal-scoping tool.

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 ("List") and a specific resource ("asset-valued input of each USD material"), which is enough to tell it apart from siblings like get_usd_materials or get_material_info at a high level. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, and "asset-valued input" is jargon that an agent must interpret as texture/file-path 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the texture-listing tool rather than get_material_info or get_usd_bound_material.

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