Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_work_item_states

Retrieves work item state counts for a specified TOP node, enabling inspection of PDG task states in Houdini.

Instructions

Get work item state counts for a TOP node.

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_work_item_states"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes

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?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. It does not confirm the operation is read-only, nor explain what 'counts' means (per-state aggregation, includes/excludes certain categories), how errors surface for an invalid node_path, or anything about the response shape despite having no output schema.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Brevity here is appropriate to the tool's size, though it edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented sole parameter mean the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it provides almost none. For even a simple tool, an agent needs to know the expected node_path form and the nature of the returned counts.

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 the single parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'TOP node' hints that node_path must reference a TOP-type node, but no path syntax, format, or example is given, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid value.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get work item state counts'), which is more informative than the name alone. However, it relies on undefined domain jargon ('TOP node') and does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings like get_work_item_info or get_failed_work_items, leaving an agent to guess at the boundary.

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 phrase 'for a TOP node' implies a usage constraint but never states when this tool should be preferred over the sibling work-item tools. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no note on what happens for a non-TOP node path.

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