Saves the current Houdini scene to disk, optionally to a specified file path, so your work is persisted and can be reopened later.
Save the current Houdini scene to disk.
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": "save_scene"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not disclose whether an existing file is overwritten, what happens when no path is given (save over the current scene file vs. error), whether the operation is reversible, or what a failed save returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has no output schema, but the definition omits the one thing an agent must know before calling it: the behavior of the optional file_path, including the default null case. For a disk-writing operation with no annotations, that gap is material.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter file_path, and the description never mentions it. The critical semantic question — what a null file_path means (save in place? prompt? fail?) — is left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('save') and resource ('the current Houdini scene') with a destination ('to disk'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not name or contrast with the obvious siblings (load_scene, new_scene), but the action is distinguishable without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this to persist the scene.' There is no guidance on when to supply file_path versus omitting it, no mention of the alternative of starting over with new_scene, and no note about overwrite semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.