Identify the nearest point(s) to a 3D position in a Houdini node. Specify a node path and query coordinates to retrieve the closest point or a set of nearest points.
Find the nearest point(s) to a given position.
Args: node_path: Node path. position: Query position as [x, y, z]. max_results: Max nearest points to return.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | Yes | ||
| node_path | Yes | ||
| max_results | 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 of disclosure. It mentions the max_results parameter but does not explain behavior such as how points are ordered (by distance ascending?), whether ties are broken, or what happens if no points are found. It also does not state whether this is a read-only operation, which is critical given the tool's name suggests a query. There is no indication of computational cost or any side effects.
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 concise and front-loads the core purpose. It uses a clear sentence followed by a parameter list in a structured format, which is easy to parse. There is no filler or redundant information, and it stays focused on the essential parameters. However, it could be slightly more informative within the same length.
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 the tool has 3 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly interpret the return value. The description does not specify whether the return is a list of point positions, indices, or distances. It also does not clarify whether the position parameter is in world space or local space, which is a common source of errors. The tool is relatively simple, but for a query that returns spatial data, the return type and units are essential context.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no additional documentation beyond types and default values. The description repeats the parameter names and types, but it adds minimal semantic meaning: 'position' is clarified as [x, y, z], and 'max_results' is described as max nearest points. However, it fails to explain the exact format of the output, such as whether it returns points or indices, which is crucial for an agent to use the result correctly. Since the schema is minimal, the description should compensate more, but it does not go beyond restating the obvious.
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 tool's purpose: finding nearest points to a given position. It uses a specific verb ('find') and a clear resource ('point(s)'), and the title matches the function. Although there are many sibling tools with similar spatial querying functions (e.g., sample_geometry, get_points), this description distinguishes it enough, as it focuses on 'nearest' rather than general geometry access.
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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like sample_geometry or get_points. The description does not mention any context, such as 'Use when you need to find points within a distance threshold' or 'alternative tools for other spatial queries.' This lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.