Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_usd_prim

Retrieve detailed information about a USD prim using its node and prim paths, with optional attribute filtering, time sampling, and instance-proxy traversal.

Instructions

Get detailed info about a USD prim.

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>",
      "prim_path": "<prim_path>"
    },
    "name": "get_usd_prim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNo
timeNo
node_pathYes
prim_pathYes
attr_patternsNo
traverse_instance_proxiesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
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, yet it only weakly implies a read via the verb "get". The schema's traverse_instance_proxies, time, and full flags hint at non-trivial behavior (instancing, time-sampled queries, verbosity) that the description never mentions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness: the one sentence is tautological and earns no place beyond the tool name. Nothing useful is front-loaded.

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?

A six-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain structure and return shape, and this one does neither. An agent cannot call it with confidence from this definition alone.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, including two required ones (node_path, prim_path). The description explains none of them, leaving the meaning of full, time, attr_patterns, and traverse_instance_proxies completely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get detailed info about a USD prim" restates the tool name with the vague filler "detailed info" instead of naming what is actually returned. With siblings like get_usd_prim_stats, get_prim_intrinsics, get_usd_attributes, and get_usd_composition in the same namespace, the description gives no basis for distinguishing this tool from any of them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of any alternative among the many sibling prim/attribute tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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