Reorder a node's input connections by specifying a new order, such as swapping first two inputs. Fix incorrect wiring or adjust data flow in Houdini scenes.
Reorder the input connections of a node.
Args: ctx: MCP context. node_path: Node path. new_order: New input ordering (e.g. [1, 0] swaps first two).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_order | Yes | ||
| node_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Reorder' without disclosing side effects, validation requirements, reversibility, or whether connections are permuted in-place. This is a mutation tool, so behavioral transparency is critical; the description fails to carry that burden.
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 with the main action, followed by a minimal Args list. It includes useful parameter examples with no unnecessary prose, earning its place.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and while the description covers the basic parameters, it omits important operational details such as expected input ordering representation, error behavior, or whether the node must be re-cooked afterward. An agent could not safely call this tool correctly from the description alone.
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 description's Args list adds meaning beyond schema: it explains node_path as a path and gives an example for new_order ('[1, 0] swaps first two'), which clarifies the format and operation. It doesn't fully specify constraints like permutation validity, but it compensates for the 0% schema coverage significantly.
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 action, 'reorder the input connections of a node,' which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from connection creation or deletion siblings. It could be improved by explicitly naming the alternative tools it is not, but the verb and resource make the purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions for reordering, or situations where another tool (e.g., connect_nodes, disconnect_node) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.