Skip to main content
Glama

build_network

Construct an entire Houdini node network atomically in one call, validating every node and parameter against the running session before creation.

Instructions

Build a whole node network in ONE atomic call — the PREFERRED way to construct anything of 3+ nodes (massively faster than node-by-node calls, and either the whole network builds or nothing does).

Every node type, parameter name, and input reference is validated against the running Houdini BEFORE anything is created; errors come back with did-you-mean suggestions. Use dry_run=True to prove a plan when using unfamiliar node types. The result includes cooked evidence: per-node errors and the display node's geometry counts — read them instead of assuming success.

Each node spec dict supports: type (required), name, parms (lists set whole parm tuples), inputs (list of source names — earlier spec names, existing children, or absolute paths; or dicts with index or input_name / source / source_output, where input_name is a connector name or label as get_node_card lists them; or {"indirect_input": n} to wire from connector n of the parent subnet itself), flags (display/render/bypass/ template), color [r,g,b], comment.

Args: parent_path: Network to build inside (e.g. "/obj/geo1"). nodes: Ordered node specs (see above). dry_run: Validate the whole spec without creating anything. layout: Also lay out the parent network afterwards (default True; honoured only when auto-layout is enabled). The nodes this call creates are always positioned, each relative to its inputs, regardless of this flag; nodes that already existed keep their exact positions, so building into a hand-arranged network is safe.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodesYes
layoutNo
dry_runNo
parent_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses atomicity (all-or-nothing), pre-validation against the running Houdini, did-you-mean error suggestions, cooked evidence in the result (per-node errors and display node geometry counts), and the layout behavior (created nodes positioned relative to inputs, existing nodes keep positions). This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is long but every section earns its place: the atomicity pitch, the validation behavior, the dry_run tip, the layout caveat, and the spec format. It is front-loaded with the most important usage guidance. It loses one point only because the node-spec enumeration is dense and could be slightly tightened, but it is not bloated or redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters behave, what the result contains, and edge-case behavior (layout with existing nodes). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains parent_path ('Network to build inside'), nodes (ordered specs with a full breakdown of the spec dict format, including type, name, parms, inputs with multiple wiring forms, flags, color, comment), dry_run (validate without creating), and layout (default True, honored only when auto-layout is enabled, with precise positioning semantics). This far exceeds what the bare schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Build'), a precise resource ('a whole node network in ONE atomic call'), and the key differentiator from node-by-node construction. It also names the preferred use case (3+ nodes) and contrasts with the slower alternative, making the tool's identity unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('the PREFERRED way to construct anything of 3+ nodes') and why (massively faster, atomic). It also gives a concrete usage tip: use dry_run=True to prove a plan with unfamiliar node types. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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