Set display, render/export, and compress flags on a COP node to control its visibility and output behavior in Houdini.
Set flags on a COP node.
Args: node_path: Path to the COP node. display: Display flag state. export_flag: Render/export flag state. compress: Compress flag state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| display | No | ||
| compress | No | ||
| node_path | Yes | ||
| export_flag | 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that flags are set and lists parameter meanings, without explaining null semantics (whether omitted flags are left unchanged), side effects, or any required node state. This is thin for a mutation tool.
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 core purpose, followed by a clean, readable Args list. Every line adds necessary information and there is no 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but omits when to use it, what happens when optional flags are null, and what the result of the operation is. These gaps make it insufficient for confident autonomous invocation.
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 document parameters. It does provide one-line meanings for each parameter, such as 'Path to the COP node' and 'Render/export flag state', adding some clarity beyond bare schema titles. However, it does not explain what values are valid or what null means for the optional flags.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('COP node'), and enumerates the exact flags affected: display, export/compress, and compress. The COP qualifier clearly distinguishes this from the generic sibling set_node_flags.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus set_node_flags or other flag-related tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for use; the intended usage must be inferred entirely from the name and short description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.