Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rename_node

Rename a Houdini node by specifying its node path and new name, allowing you to update node identifiers within a workflow.

Instructions

Rename a 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": {
      "node_path": "<node_path>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_nameYes
node_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
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 disclosure burden, and it discloses only that this is a mutation. It does not say whether the rename is in place, what happens to existing connections or references, whether the name must be unique, or what errors occur on 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is nothing to trim and nothing of substance to keep.

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 zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves an agent unable to determine path format, name constraints, return value, or failure modes. A simple two-parameter mutation still needs this information from somewhere, and nothing supplies it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, and the description adds nothing about node_path syntax (absolute vs relative, separator conventions) or new_name constraints (allowed characters, collisions, reserved names). The description provides no compensation for the undocumented schema.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Rename a node." restates the tool name rename_node almost verbatim, adding no scope, no target domain (nodes in a VFX/DCC graph), and no differentiation from siblings such as move_node or change_node_type. An agent learns nothing it could not infer from the identifier alone.

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 statement of preconditions (node must exist, path must be valid), and no mention of when to prefer this over change_node_type or create_node. Usage is only implied by the verb 'rename' in the name.

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