Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_work_item_info

Retrieve detailed information for a specific work item by node path and work item index, so you can inspect its status and attributes in Houdini.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific work item.

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>",
      "work_item_index": "<work_item_index>"
    },
    "name": "get_work_item_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes
work_item_indexYes

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 behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read via "Get." It says nothing about what happens with an invalid node_path or out-of-range index, whether the index is 0-based, or how errors are surfaced.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare purpose.

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 zero parameter documentation, the description would need to explain return content and parameter meaning. Instead it leaves "detailed information" opaque and both parameters undocumented, which is inadequate for a two-required-parameter retrieval tool.

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% for both required parameters. The description implies work_item_index selects the item but never explains indexing base, valid ranges, or what node_path refers to (absolute vs relative, node hierarchy semantics), so the gap is not compensated.

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 clear verb and resource ("Get detailed information about a specific work item"), so the agent knows it retrieves a single work item. However, "detailed information" is undefined, and there is no differentiation from siblings such as get_work_item_states or get_failed_work_items, which also return work-item data.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the related work-item tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the words "specific work item."

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