Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_caches

Lists all cache-type nodes under a specified root path, helping you locate and inspect Houdini cache nodes for workflow management.

Instructions

List all cache-type nodes under a root path.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_caches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
root_pathNo/

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 burden and discloses almost nothing beyond a read-style listing. It does not say whether the listing is recursive, what a 'cache-type node' actually is (render cache, file cache, etc.), or whether the default root means the whole scene.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is efficient at conveying very little.

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 an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin for the ambiguity of the resource. An agent cannot tell what node types qualify or what the result shape is, which matters given the dense sibling set of similar list tools.

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 root_path, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter concept ('root path') without adding path syntax, format, or recursion semantics. The default value of '/' and its meaning for scope is left entirely to the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb (List) and resource (cache-type nodes) plus a scope (under a root path), which is enough to know what the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling list_* tools, notably list_children, which could plausibly overlap.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_children or clear_cache, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. Only an implied 'this is the listing tool for caches' can be inferred.

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