Retrieve detailed data for a specific DOP object in Houdini by specifying the network node path and object name, enabling direct access to simulation attributes.
Get detailed data for a specific DOP object.
Args: node_path: DOP network node path. object_name: DOP object name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes | ||
| object_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states "Get detailed data," which implies a read-only action, but it does not disclose whether the network needs to be cooked, what "detailed data" contains, potential performance costs, or behavior when the object is missing.
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 short and front-loaded, with an efficient args list. Every line serves a purpose; there is no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter get tool.
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 and no annotations, a simple two-parameter get tool needs more context: what fields the detailed data includes, how the node_path is formatted, and whether this overlaps with get_dop_field. The description leaves these gaps unresolved.
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 adds minor clarity for node_path ("DOP network node path"), but object_name is just "DOP object name," essentially restating the title. No format examples or further disambiguation are provided.
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?
"Get detailed data for a specific DOP object" clearly identifies the verb (Get), resource (detailed data), and scope (specific DOP object). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_dop_objects and get_dop_field by its focus on a single object, though it does not explicitly contrast itself.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_dop_objects or get_dop_field. The description implies a read operation for a specific object, but provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.