Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

validate_vex

Validates VEX code by cooking the specified Houdini node and checking for errors, so you can catch syntax and runtime issues before relying on the code in your setup.

Instructions

Validate VEX code by cooking the node and checking for errors.

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>"
    },
    "name": "validate_vex"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important side effect that validation happens by cooking the node, but it says nothing about whether the cook has side effects or cost, whether it requires an active session, what a failure looks like, or how errors are reported back to the caller.

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 zero filler, and the key mechanism (cooking) is stated up front. It is efficiently written, though the terseness leaves the definition under-informative rather than over-long.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth, yet it does not explain what validation returns (boolean, error list, cooked result) or what counts as an error. For a validation tool whose entire value is the diagnostic result, this is a significant gap.

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?

The schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, only the title "Node Path". The description never mentions node_path, so it adds no meaning about what path is expected, whether it must be a VEX-bearing node type, or how invalid paths behave. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 object ("Validate VEX code") plus the mechanism used ("cooking the node and checking for errors"), which tells an agent this is a check operation rather than a cook/render job. It does not explicitly contrast with cooking siblings like cook_top_node or cook_frame_range, so differentiation relies on the word "Validate".

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this after writing or editing VEX to confirm the code compiles and cooks without errors. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for related tasks such as actually cooking a node for output.

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