Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

move_node

Move a Houdini node to a different parent network by specifying its node path and destination parent.

Instructions

Move a node to a different parent network.

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>",
      "dest_parent": "<dest_parent>"
    },
    "name": "move_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes
dest_parentYes

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 does not meet it. It does not say whether connections/inputs are preserved or severed across the reparent, whether the operation requires a cook or lock, whether the move is reversible, or what error occurs if dest_parent is invalid.

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 zero padding. It is concise, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot know the side effects on existing connections or the expected argument formats, which are essential for calling a reparenting operation correctly.

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% and both parameters are required, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at the two parameters (a node and a parent network) but never explains whether node_path is an internal path like /obj/geo1 or an opaque ID, or what form dest_parent takes.

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 (move) and resource (node) plus the destination concept (a different parent network), which distinguishes it from siblings like copy_node, connect_nodes, or set_node_position. It stops short of naming any sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 versus copy_node or delete_node+create_node, no prerequisites (does dest_parent need to already exist?), and no warnings about what happens to the node's existing connections after the reparent.

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