Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

load_scene

Open a Houdini .hip file or merge it into the current scene to reuse existing setups, with options to target node paths and handle conflicts.

Instructions

Open a hip file, or merge it into the current scene.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "load_scene"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mergeNo
file_pathYes
node_pathsNo
overwrite_on_conflictNo

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 behavioral burden and largely drops it. It never says that opening replaces the current scene, how merge interacts with existing nodes, what overwrite_on_conflict does to the scene, or whether the operation is reversible — critical disclosure for a scene-loading tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a four-parameter tool rather than being genuinely well-proportioned.

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% parameter coverage, the description should explain side effects, conflict handling, and return behavior. Instead it offers a single sentence, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it safely in either mode.

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% across four parameters. The description only loosely maps to file_path and merge ('merge it into the current scene'), while node_paths and overwrite_on_conflict receive no explanation anywhere, leaving half the parameters undefined for the agent.

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 concrete verb and resource: it opens a scene file or merges one into the current scene. That clearly distinguishes it from save_scene and get_scene, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with new_scene, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 only usage signal is the implicit fork between 'open' and 'merge', with no conditions for choosing one, no prerequisites (does the file need to exist, what format), and no mention of when to prefer new_scene. An agent must infer everything about mode selection.

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