Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

layout_children

Automatically arranges the child nodes of a Houdini network parent into a clean layout, with optional spacing control.

Instructions

Auto-layout children of a network 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": {
      "parent_path": "<parent_path>"
    },
    "name": "layout_children"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
spacingNo
parent_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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It implies a mutation of node positions but says nothing about whether the change is reversible, which children are affected, whether existing manual positions are overwritten, or what happens when spacing is null.

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 filler and the key constraint front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

This is a mutating layout operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema; the description should explain the effect on the network graph and the role of spacing, and it does neither.

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 for two undocumented parameters. 'Children of a network node' loosely maps to parent_path, but the spacing parameter — its units, effect, and default behavior — is never mentioned, leaving half the input surface unexplained.

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 sentence names a verb (auto-layout) and a resource (children of a network node), which is more than a tautology and gives a rough sense of the operation. However, 'auto-layout' is left undefined — it is not stated whether this rearranges node positions in the network editor or computes something else — and no sibling such as list_children is referenced, so the distinction from related tools must be inferred.

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 mention of an alternative. An agent learns nothing about when this should be preferred over list_children or manual node placement.

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