Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_keyframe

Set a single keyframe on a Houdini node parameter at a specified frame and value, with optional slope and acceleration for animation control.

Instructions

Set a single keyframe on a parameter.

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>",
      "parm_name": "<parm_name>",
      "frame": "<frame>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "set_keyframe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accelNo
frameYes
slopeNo
valueYes
node_pathYes
parm_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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether existing keyframes are overwritten, what node_path/parm_name formats are expected, or what errors occur. Only the fact that it mutates animation is conveyed.

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 wasted words and the action front-loaded. It is concise but so under-specified that brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

A mutation tool with six parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema needs more than one sentence. Nothing about keyframe overwrite semantics, interpolation parameters, or failure modes is provided.

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% across six parameters, and the description explains none of them. Notably it ignores slope and accel, which materially change interpolation behavior and are not self-explanatory from their names alone.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Set a single keyframe on a parameter'), and 'single' hints at the difference from the sibling set_keyframes. However, it never names that sibling or clarifies that this applies one keyframe versus batch behavior, so the distinction is left to inference.

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 set_keyframes or delete_keyframe, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent gets only the bare action with no routing context.

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