Retrieve CHOP node track data by node path, optionally targeting a channel and sample range. Use it to inspect or extract animation or signal values from Houdini CHOP networks.
Get CHOP node track data.
Args: node_path: CHOP node path. channel_name: Specific channel to retrieve. start: Start sample index. end: End sample index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| node_path | Yes | ||
| channel_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, and it discloses nothing: no return shape, no sampling rate, no units, no whether the CHOP must be cooked, no permission requirements. The phrase 'track data' adds no concrete behavioral information.
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 one-line purpose plus an Args list is compact and front-loaded, so nothing is bloated. But the Args block is a low-value re-listing of parameter names that does little work for its 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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, the description should explain what the returned track data looks like (samples, channels, ranges) and any cooking/prerequisite conditions. It omits all of this, leaving a significant gap for an agent trying to interpret the result.
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 compensate, and it does partially: 'start sample index' / 'end sample index' clarify that these are sample indices rather than seconds or frames, which is meaningful. But it merely restates the names of node_path and channel_name without adding unit, format, or default behavior beyond what is inferable.
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 verb and resource ('Get CHOP node track data'), so the agent knows it retrieves channel data from a CHOP node. However, 'track data' is vague about what is actually returned, and the description makes no attempt to differentiate from the sibling list_chop_channels.
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 reach for this tool versus siblings like list_chop_channels or export_chop_to_parm, nor any preconditions (does the node need to be cooked first?). Only the implied context of 'getting' data is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.