Retrieve the geometry output from a Houdini COP node by specifying its path and output index.
Get geometry representation from a COP node.
Args: node_path: Path to the COP node. output_index: Output connector index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes | ||
| output_index | 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 behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what the geometry representation looks like, whether it triggers a cook, or what happens if the node path is invalid. The description is too terse to disclose meaningful behavior beyond the basic action.
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 short and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter documentation is compact and readable. However, the 'Args:' section is arguably redundant with the schema, and the description could have used that space for more valuable behavioral context.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is incomplete. An agent would not know what the return value looks like, whether the operation is safe/read-only, or how to handle edge cases. The sibling tools (get_cop_info, get_cop_layer, get_cop_vdb) suggest a family of COP-related getters, but this description doesn't clarify how this one fits.
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. It lists the two parameters with one-line definitions ('Path to the COP node', 'Output connector index'), which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type/title. It doesn't explain what an 'output connector index' is, how to determine valid indices, or what format the node_path should take.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('geometry representation from a COP node'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_cop_info or get_cop_layer, but the resource and action are specific enough to be understood.
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 versus alternatives like get_cop_info, get_cop_layer, or get_cop_vdb. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only usage hint is the parameter list, which is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.