Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_dop_objects

Lists all DOP objects in a Houdini simulation using a specified node path, helping inspect dynamics networks and identify simulation components.

Instructions

List all DOP objects in a simulation.

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": "list_dop_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes

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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the operation. It does not say whether results are recursive, what fields each object carries, whether the call is read-only or cooks anything, or how errors surface for an invalid path.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on 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?

The tool is low-complexity (one required param, no nested objects, no output schema), which lowers the bar, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation the description should explain the path argument and the shape of the returned object list. It leaves both unaddressed.

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 single parameter node_path is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains that node_path identifies the DOP network to enumerate or what format it takes, leaving the only parameter entirely semantically bare.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (DOP objects) scoped to a simulation, and the word "all" signals it returns a collection rather than a single object, which distinguishes it from get_dop_object. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it lands just below the top mark.

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 mention of when to prefer get_dop_object or list_dop_relationships, and no prerequisites or context about which node_path values are valid. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the required parameter.

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