Disconnect one input or all inputs from a Houdini node to rewire or clear its connections in a scene.
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.
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 burden. For a mutation tool it says nothing about side effects: whether disconnecting is reversible, what happens to downstream cooks, whether the node path must be valid, or what the result looks like. The 'Args' block merely restates parameter names.
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 opening sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the following 'Args:' block is boilerplate that duplicates the schema's property titles without adding information, which weakens the otherwise efficient structure.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs the description to explain side effects and parameter interplay. It does not, leaving an agent unable to predict the tool's behavior from the definition alone.
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% for 3 parameters, and the description does not compensate. The arg list ('Node path.', 'Input index to disconnect.', 'Disconnect all inputs.') echoes the schema titles verbatim, adding no format, range, or interaction semantics (e.g., how input_index and disconnect_all combine).
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?
States a clear verb+resource: 'Disconnect one or all inputs of a node.' An agent immediately knows the operation. However it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as connect_nodes, connect_nodes_batch, or reorder_inputs, so a 5 is not warranted.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus connect_nodes/connect_nodes_batch, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the node must exist or be connected), and no explanation of when to prefer disconnect_all over input_index. Usage must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.