Batch-set multiple keyframes on a Houdini parameter by supplying node path, parameter name, and a list of frame-value pairs with optional slope and acceleration.
Batch-set multiple keyframes on a parameter.
Args: node_path: Node path. parm_name: Parameter name. keyframes: List of dicts with "frame", "value", and optionally "slope"/"accel".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyframes | Yes | ||
| node_path | Yes | ||
| parm_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether existing keyframes are overwritten, whether the parameter must already exist, what happens on partial failure, or what the tool returns. This is a meaningful gap 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: one clear purpose sentence followed by an Args block. Every line earns its place and there is no filler. It could have integrated more usage context, but as structured it is appropriately sized.
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 is incomplete for safe autonomous use. It explains the inputs but not the call's side effects, overwrite semantics, return value, or error behavior. For a tool that mutates keyframes, more context is needed.
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 add value by explaining node_path, parm_name, and especially the keyframes format as a list of dicts with frame, value, and optional slope/accel. However, it omits value types and allowed ranges, so compensation is only partial.
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 states a specific action ('Batch-set'), a specific resource ('multiple keyframes on a parameter'), and the batch aspect clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set_keyframe. An agent can understand what this tool does at a glance.
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 word 'Batch-set' implies this tool is for setting multiple keyframes at once, which hints at when to use it versus set_keyframe or delete_keyframe. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.