Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

inspect_usd_layer

Inspect a specific USD layer by index at a Houdini node path to review layer contents and verify data before scene processing.

Instructions

Inspect a USD layer by index.

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": "inspect_usd_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes
layer_indexNo

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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether the call is read-only, whether an out-of-range layer_index errors or is clamped, or what an inspection result contains is left unstated. Only the word "inspect" hints at a non-mutating read.

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 zero redundancy, so nothing needs trimming. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than concision; the front-loaded phrase "Inspect a USD layer" is the only substantive content.

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 0% schema description coverage, this definition should do far more work. As written, an agent has no way to know what node_path refers to, what valid layer indexes are, or what the result looks like.

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%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. "By index" weakly maps to layer_index (but never explains 0-based indexing, though the schema default of 0 hints at it), and the required node_path parameter is never mentioned or explained at all.

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?

"Inspect a USD layer by index" names a resource (USD layer) and a selector (index), but "inspect" is a vague verb that does not say what is actually returned or how it differs from siblings such as get_usd_layers or get_usd_composition. An agent cannot reliably tell which layer-related tool to pick from this alone.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternative. The description never says whether to reach for this tool instead of get_usd_layers (listing) or get_usd_composition (structure), leaving the choice entirely to inference.

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