Import a geometry, USD, or Alembic file into a Houdini scene by specifying its path, optional parent network location, and node name to create the import node.
Import a geometry, USD, or Alembic file into the scene.
Args: file_path: Path to the file to import. parent_path: Network path for the import node. node_name: Name for the created node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | ||
| node_name | No | ||
| parent_path | No | /obj |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action and the created node's role through parameters, but does not mention side effects, return values, error behavior, file resolution rules, or what happens when the import fails. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
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 and front-loaded: a single clear purpose sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema defaults or obvious 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only a terse description, the tool lacks critical context: what it returns, whether it triggers a cook, how it handles invalid file paths, and how it relates to load_scene or export_file. This is too thin for an agent to confidently invoke without further investigation.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds useful context for parent_path and node_name ('Network path for the import node', 'Name for the created node'), but file_path is merely restated as 'Path to the file to import' without clarifying supported formats, path interpretation, or constraints.
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 first sentence states a specific action ('Import'), the resource types ('geometry, USD, or Alembic file'), and the destination ('into the scene'). This clearly distinguishes it from export_file and load_scene without needing to inspect the schema.
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 implies the tool should be used when importing one of the listed file types into the scene, which is useful. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better alternative, such as load_scene for entire scenes or create_node for building nodes from scratch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.