Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_hda_section_content

Write content to a specific section of an HDA definition by supplying the node path, section name, and new content.

Instructions

Write content to a specific section in an HDA definition.

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>",
      "section_name": "<section_name>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "set_hda_section_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
node_pathYes
section_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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. It says "write" but never states whether existing section content is overwritten or appended, whether the change persists to disk, or whether a reload_hda is required afterward — all critical for a mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere rather than being earned conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits overwrite semantics, persistence, validation failures, and all parameter meaning. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly beyond the literal name is present.

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%, so the schema documents nothing beyond bare titles. The description does not explain node_path (instance path vs. type path), section_name conventions, or what format/content the string should take, leaving all three required parameters underspecified.

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 specific verb ("Write") and resource ("content to a specific section in an HDA definition"), which is more precise than the bare tool name. It does not distinguish this from neighboring write tools such as set_hda_interface or update_hda, so an agent gets no explicit routing help.

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 update_hda, set_hda_interface, or edit_hda_interface. It also omits prerequisites, such as whether the HDA must exist, be installed, or be in an editable/unlocked state before writing.

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