Disconnect a specific input or all inputs from a Houdini node to break unwanted connections and clear its dependencies.
Disconnect one or all inputs of a node.
Args: ctx: MCP context. node_path: Node path. input_index: Input index to disconnect. disconnect_all: Disconnect all inputs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes | ||
| input_index | No | ||
| disconnect_all | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only states the action without mentioning whether disconnecting is destructive, reversible, requires node prerequisites, or has side effects on dependent nodes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 compact and front-loads the core action, but the 'Args' block mostly duplicates schema property names and includes an extraneous ctx parameter. It is not overly verbose, but has some filler that could be removed.
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 mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the graph-level effect of disconnecting inputs, prerequisites, default handling when both input_index and disconnect_all are provided, or what a successful call returns.
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 lists node_path, input_index, and disconnect_all with terse labels, but does not clarify the relationship between input_index and disconnect_all (e.g., mutual exclusivity, behavior when both are set, meaning of null input_index). It also mentions 'ctx', which is not present in the input schema, adding confusion.
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 uses the specific verb 'Disconnect' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one or all inputs of a node', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_nodes and reorder_inputs. The action is immediately understandable.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as connect_nodes, reorder_inputs, or set_node_flags. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.