Inspect a Houdini node network and return a compact overview, with adjustable recursion depth to avoid oversized results.
Get a compact overview of a network.
Keep depth low (1–2). Larger values on complex scenes return thousands
of nodes and can overflow the context window.
Args: path: Network path. depth: Recursion depth (default 2, keep ≤ 3).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | /obj | |
| depth | 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully warns that larger depth values 'return thousands of nodes and can overflow the context window,' but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe side effects or return shape.
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: purpose first, then the key risk warning, then parameter details. Every sentence contributes useful information without filler.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the main risk. It could mention what the overview contains, but the core invocation information is present.
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 documents both parameters ('path: Network path', 'depth: Recursion depth') and adds important constraints ('default 2, keep ≤ 3', 'Keep depth low (1–2)') that are not in the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a compact overview of a network.' It is clear what the tool returns at a high level, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_node_info, list_children, or get_scene_summary.
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?
The purpose implies usage, and the warning 'Keep depth low (1–2)' gives practical guidance for safe invocation. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_node_info or list_children, so selection guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.