Copies a Houdini node to a specified parent network, with optional new name. Use to duplicate nodes across different hierarchies.
Copy a node, optionally into a different parent network.
Args: ctx: MCP context. node_path: Source node path. dest_parent: Destination parent path. new_name: Name for the copy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | No | ||
| node_path | Yes | ||
| dest_parent | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it copies a node but does not mention whether the copy is deep, what happens to connections, dependencies, or how name conflicts are handled. It also does not disclose any side effects or required permissions, making it incomplete for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence summarizing the purpose plus a structured Args docstring. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the docstring format is somewhat redundant with the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly. It lacks critical details such as error handling, naming conflict behavior, whether the copy is recursive, and how the tool relates to sibling operations like move_node or create_node. This is insufficient for a tool that manipulates scene graph nodes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. The docstring provides brief explanations for each parameter (source node path, destination parent path, name for the copy), which adds some meaning beyond the bare titles. However, it does not clarify optionality, defaults, or the behavior when dest_parent or new_name are omitted, leaving significant ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (copy) and the resource (node), with an optional variation (into a different parent network). It is specific enough to distinguish from move_node and create_node, though it does not explicitly mention the new_name parameter, which is implied but not highlighted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_node, rename_node, or create_node. It does not state when copying is appropriate or when a different tool should be used instead, leaving the agent to infer the context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.