Retrieve geometry summary for a SOP node to inspect point counts, primitive counts, and attributes. Specify 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.
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. It does not say what the 'summary' contains, whether it triggers a cook, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like for an empty/invalid node. The multi-output explanation is the one genuinely useful behavioral detail, but it is thin for an annotation-free tool.
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?
Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then a compact Args block. The 'Args:' boilerplate restates parameter names already present in the schema, but the overall text is short and wastes little space.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source for both safety profile and return-value shape, yet it omits what the geometry summary actually reports and whether the call has side effects (e.g. forcing a cook). Only the output_index behavior is covered, so an agent is left guessing about the payload.
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. output_index is explained well, including which node types have several outputs and that 0 is the first. node_path, however, gets only the tautology 'Node path,' adding nothing beyond the schema, leaving half the parameters semantically bare.
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: 'Get geometry summary for a SOP node.' An agent can tell it is a read of summarized geometry data, distinct from lower-level siblings like get_points or get_prims. However it never names those siblings or delimits what 'summary' includes, so differentiation is implicit.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned. The only implied guidance is that the target must be a SOP node, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.