Retrieve information about the current Houdini scene to inspect its contents and structure. Identify objects, nodes, and parameters for scene understanding.
Get information about the current Houdini scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 implies a read but never states read-only behavior, and says nothing about what scope of data ('information') is returned or its cost. For a no-annotation tool, this is thin.
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?
A single short sentence with no wasted words and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.
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 no parameters, the description is the only source of information and it does not say what the scene information comprises. An agent cannot predict the payload shape, which matters more here than for richer siblings.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets the baseline 4.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current Houdini scene'), so the basic intent is clear. However, 'information' is vague about what is actually returned, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_scene_summary or get_context_info, which appear to overlap in purpose.
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 no indication of when to use this versus alternatives. With near-identical siblings such as get_scene_summary and get_context_info in the toolset, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent guessing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.