Retrieve a summary of geometry from a Houdini SOP node, specifying the node path and optional output index for multi-output nodes.
Get geometry summary for a SOP node.
Args: node_path: Node path. output_index: Which output to read, for nodes with several (FLIP compress, Vellum solver, whitewater source): 0 is the first.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions the output_index parameter's role for multi-output nodes. It does not state whether the tool triggers a cook, what side effects occur, or what the summary includes. The lack of any safety or read-only hints leaves the agent guessing.
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 structured with a clear title and an Args section. It front-loads the core purpose and adds parameter details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the 'summary' includes, but it does not. It omits return value details, error conditions, and prerequisites. For a tool that presumably returns aggregate geometry information, the lack of specification is a significant gap.
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 explain parameters. It does explain output_index with examples of node types, adding value beyond the schema's default. However, node_path is merely described as 'Node path' with no format or example, leaving ambiguity. The description partially compensates but is not comprehensive.
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 gets a geometry summary for a SOP node, distinguishing it from more specific geometry queries like get_points or get_bounding_box. The verb 'get' and resource 'geometry summary' are specific, though it doesn't elaborate on what the summary contains, which prevents a perfect score.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of scenarios where a summary is preferred over detailed queries, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.