Get a compact overview of a Houdini network by specifying a path and recursion depth. Avoids context overflow by keeping depth low for complex scenes.
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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description does add behavioral context beyond the schema: it flags the depth-dependent scale risk. It stops short of fuller transparency by omitting what exactly the 'overview' contains or what failure looks like.
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 compact, scannable, and prioritizes the warning a user most needs: keep depth low to avoid context overflow. No filler is present.
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 two-parameter read-only overview tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key usage constraint, and parameter semantics. It lacks only richer context like output shape or examples, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.
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 explains `path` as 'network path' and `depth` as 'recursion depth' with a default and safety limit, adding real meaning beyond the bare parameter names.
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 action and resource: 'Get a compact overview of a network.' It is clear enough to distinguish from detailed node inspection tools, although it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 description gives clear usage context: keep `depth` low (1–2), because larger values on complex scenes can overflow the context window. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the guidance it provides is concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.