Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Houdini MCP

Houdini MCP

by beatreichenbach
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

write_cache

Runs a Houdini cache node and reports whether the cache actually appeared, confirming the cache write succeeded.

Instructions

Execute a cache node, and report whether a cache actually appeared.

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": "write_cache"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathYes
backgroundNo
frame_rangeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful trait – that a cache may not actually appear, so the result should be inspected – but it omits side effects (disk/memory writes), whether the operation is idempotent, and how the background or frame_range modes change behavior.

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 filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is as much under-specification as conciseness.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero-documented parameters, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum cover what gets written, whether execution can be asynchronous or range-scoped, and what the reported result means.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters (node_path, background, frame_range), and the description mentions none of them. Nothing explains what node_path points to, what running in background implies, or what a frame_range limits.

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 gives a verb and object ("Execute a cache node") but the phrasing conflicts slightly with the tool name's implication of writing a cache, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like clear_cache, get_cache_status, or cook_top_node. An agent can guess the rough purpose but cannot confidently separate it from other cache/cook tools.

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 tool versus clear_cache, get_cache_status, or the cook_* family, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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