Add a sticky note to a Houdini network for visual annotation, using custom text, position, size, and color.
Leave a sticky note in a network.
Args: ctx: MCP context. parent_path: Network the note lives in. text: Note text. position: [x, y] in network editor units. size: [width, height] in network editor units. color: RGB in 0..1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| position | No | ||
| parent_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to lean on, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Leave a sticky note' and lists parameters, with no mention of side effects, return behavior, persistence, or error conditions. For a mutating creation tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a clear gap.
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 extremely lean: one purpose sentence followed by a terse, well-aligned arg list. Every line adds information about parameter semantics; there is no filler or repetition. The purpose is front-loaded, and the structure makes the parameter mapping easy to scan.
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?
The parameter semantics are well covered, and the tool is a simple create operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should also mention what successful creation looks like or whether parent_path must already exist. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully contextual.
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?
Schema descriptions are entirely empty, so this arg list carries full weight. It explains each parameter: parent_path is 'Network the note lives in,' and it adds units for position and size ('network editor units') and the color range ('RGB in 0..1'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Leave a sticky note in a network.' This clearly identifies what the tool creates and where it acts. Among a large sibling set, this is the only sticky-note creation tool, and the wording distinguishes it from generic node-creation tools like create_node.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_node or set_node_color, and no mention of preconditions like parent_path needing to be a valid network. The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.