Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

setup_vellum_sim

Create a Vellum simulation network with a configure node and solver, setting geometry, simulation type, ground, and substeps.

Instructions

Build a Vellum simulation network with configure node and solver.

Tool call template

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": "setup_vellum_sim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNovellum_sim
groundNo
geo_pathNo/obj/geo1
sim_typeNocloth
substepsNo

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether the tool mutates the existing scene graph, what nodes it creates or where, whether an existing network is replaced, or what happens if geo_path already contains a sim.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. The phrase 'with configure node and solver' is grammatically ambiguous about whether those are created, required, or just implied.

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 5-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool needs far more than one sentence. Nothing tells the agent the resulting network layout, the effect of defaults, or how to verify success afterward.

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?

All 5 parameters (name, ground, geo_path, sim_type, substeps) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. 'configure node and solver' gives no indication of what 'ground' toggles or how substeps affects the solve.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Build a Vellum simulation network', which clearly separates it from siblings such as setup_flip_sim, setup_pyro_sim, and setup_rbd_sim. It also hints at the artifacts produced ('configure node and solver'), though it never states the outcome precisely.

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 prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the entry point for a cloth/Vellum sim rather than a follow-up or a render setup step.

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