Capture a screenshot of a Houdini node's network editor view using its node path, and optionally save it to a specified image file path.
Capture a screenshot of a node's network editor view.
Args: node_path: Node path to focus on. output_path: Image file path. Default: a new PNG in the temp dir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.24.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / output_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / output_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / output_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "node_path",
- "output_path"
-]New value: +[
+ "node_path"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the tool writes an image file to disk and defaults to a new PNG in the temp dir when no path is given. That said, it omits whether it returns the path, requires an active Houdini session, or blocks until render completes.
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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the two Args entries are terse. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but costs little and stays focused.
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 and no output schema, the description must stand alone. It covers the essential input contract but says nothing about the return value, error behavior, or session prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer how to consume the result.
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 does give brief meaning for both parameters ('node path to focus on', 'image file path' plus the temp-dir default), but leaves the node path format and expected image extension unspecified, so it only partially fills the gap.
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 (capture a screenshot) and resource (a node's network editor view), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like capture_network_editor or capture_screenshot, leaving the agent to guess which of the near-identical capture tools to pick.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus capture_network_editor, capture_screenshot, render_viewport, or render_quad_view. No preconditions, no exclusions, no routing guidance of any kind.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.