Read a specific field value from a Houdini DOP record by specifying the node path, object name, data path, and field name.
Read a specific field value from a DOP record.
Args: node_path: DOP network node path. object_name: DOP object name. data_path: Dot-separated subdata path (e.g. "Geometry", "Forces/Gravity"). field_name: Field name to read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data_path | Yes | ||
| node_path | Yes | ||
| field_name | Yes | ||
| object_name | Yes |
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. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but it says nothing about error behavior when the field or data path is absent, whether a simulation must exist, or what the returned value looks like. Minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args list. Every line carries information with no filler; slightly terse but efficient.
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 simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers parameters well but omits return shape, failure modes, and preconditions. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool the agent must invoke correctly.
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 — and it does, documenting all four parameters and even providing a syntax example for data_path ('Forces/Gravity'). This meaningfully exceeds what the bare schema titles offer.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Read a specific field value from a DOP record.' This distinguishes it from get_dop_object and list_dop_objects by narrowing scope to a single field. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource boundary is clear.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. simulation must be cooked), and no alternatives named despite many DOP siblings (get_dop_object, get_dop_relationships, list_dop_objects). The agent must 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.