Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_detail_attrib

Set a detail attribute on a SOP node to define or update geometry attributes in Houdini workflows.

Instructions

Set a detail attribute on a SOP 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>",
      "attrib_name": "<attrib_name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "set_detail_attrib"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYes
node_pathYes
attrib_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the attribute is created if absent, what happens on type mismatch, whether the node must be cooked or locked, or whether the write is reversible.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from disciplined editing. It is under-specified rather than tight.

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 zero documented parameters, the definition is not sufficient to call it confidently. An agent cannot tell what a successful response looks like or how failures surface.

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% for all three parameters (node_path, attrib_name, value), and the description mentions none of them explicitly. Only the phrase "on a SOP node" implicitly hints at the expected form of node_path; attrib_name conventions and the accepted value types are left entirely to the schema's type union.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Set a detail attribute on a SOP node"), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from adjacent attribute tools in the sibling set (e.g. set_usd_attribute, get_attrib_values) and leaves the jargon "detail attribute" undefined for anyone unfamiliar with SOP attribute classes.

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 prerequisites (node must exist, network context, whether the attribute must already exist), and no pointer to alternatives for setting point/prim/vertex attributes instead of detail attributes.

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