Skip to main content
Glama
healkeiser

fxhoudinimcp

by healkeiser
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_material_network

Build a Houdini material network in /mat by specifying a shader type and parameters. Maps base color, roughness, metalness, and opacity to the correct shader attributes, reporting any unmatched keys.

Instructions

Create a new material network in /mat.

The keys base_color ([r, g, b]), roughness, metalness and opacity are accepted on both shader types and mapped to the shader's own parameter names (base_colorr/g/b and specular_roughness on MaterialX, basecolor, rough, metallic and opac on Principled). Any other key must be the shader's real parameter name; a list sets the whole parm tuple. The reply lists what was applied and, under "skipped", every key that matched no parameter, with the reason.

Args: ctx: MCP context. name: Name for the new material node. shader_type: "principled" (principledshader::2.0), "materialx" (mtlxstandard_surface), or any material node type name. params: Parameter name-value pairs to set on the shader.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
paramsNo
shader_typeNoprincipled

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it explains mapping of common keys to shader-specific names, that arbitrary keys must be real parameter names, that lists set the whole parm tuple, and that the reply reports skipped keys with reasons. It does not cover all possible side effects or permissions, but for a create tool the key mutation and failure behavior are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence adds value: scope, parameter mapping behavior, unknown-key handling, and response shape. The Args list is cleanly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input semantics and the response enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps such as name-uniqueness expectations or what happens with a null params object are not material to successful invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; the Args section fully explains name, shader_type (including valid values), and params (name-value pairs, accepted keys, and list semantics). It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

The description clearly states the action and target: 'Create a new material network in /mat.' This is a specific verb+resource, and the name/behavior differentiates it from merely assigning materials. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_material or assign_material, so it misses the full top score.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when creating a material network in /mat) and details accepted parameters, but it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Compared to the calibration example that explicitly routes to a sibling, this leaves the choice to the agent's inference.

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