Create a new Houdini take, optionally nested under a parent take, to organize and manage alternative scene versions.
Create a new take, optionally under a parent take.
Args: name: Name for the new take. parent_name: Parent take name (defaults to current take).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.24.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'create' but omits side effects: whether the new take becomes the current take, what happens to the scene state, whether the operation is reversible, and what is returned. The only behavioral detail is the parent default, which is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the purpose and then lists the two arguments efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool, though the separate Args block repeats parameter names that could arguably be integrated into the first sentence.
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?
For a low-complexity, two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and both parameters adequately. However, it leaves out the post-creation state change (current take behavior) and any return or side-effect information, which an agent would need to invoke it with full confidence.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must document the parameters. It does both: 'name' is called the name for the new take, and 'parent_name' is described as the parent take name with a default of the current take. This adds meaningful default behavior not present in the schema. Only minor format or constraint details are missing.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new take'. It adds scope ('optionally under a parent take'), which helps an agent distinguish it from the read/write siblings like list_takes or set_current_take. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.
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?
It implies the core use case (making a new take) and mentions the optional parent nesting, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to related tools like set_current_take or list_takes. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.