List all sections in a Houdini Digital Asset definition by node path to inspect its internal structure and contents.
List all sections in an HDA definition.
Args: ctx: MCP context. node_path: Node path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | 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. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, side effects, scope, or whether the HDA must be loaded first. For a no-annotation tool this is a substantial gap, though the read-only implication is at least implied by the verb.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and terse, but the Args block is boilerplate clutter — 'ctx: MCP context' is developer documentation leaking into agent-facing text, and 'node_path: Node path' adds no information.
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, no annotations, and near-zero parameter documentation, the definition omits what the returned sections look like and what is needed to call it successfully. Adequate only for guessing the tool exists, not for invoking it confidently.
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% and the description only offers 'node_path: Node path', which merely restates the parameter name. It does not clarify the expected path format (e.g., network path syntax) or whether it identifies the HDA instance vs. its definition.
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 ('List') and resource ('sections in an HDA definition'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like get_hda_section_content or get_hda_info, so an agent must infer the distinction (metadata list vs. content payload).
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 on when to use this instead of get_hda_info, get_hda_section_content, or list_installed_hdas. The condition that selects this tool is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.