Creates a new take in Houdini, optionally nested under a parent take, to organize scene variations for rendering or compositing.
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.
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. It fails to disclose whether creating a take modifies the current take, whether it can be undone, or any side effects. It does not state if the tool changes state or just creates a record.
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 very concise, with a single purpose sentence and a compact Arg list. It is front-loaded with the main verb. However, it could be more structured with clear sections.
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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand the result of the operationcars. It does not mention return value, error conditions, or how it interacts with the current take system, which is critical for proper usage.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'name' and 'parent_name' briefly, but omits details like the format of parent_name, whether 'current take' is required to exist, and any constraints on names. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 (create a take) and the optional parent relationship. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_current_take and set_current_take, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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?
The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on whether this is a one-time operation, how it relates to current take, or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.