Set the color of a Houdini node in the network editor by providing the node path and RGB values.
Set a node's color in the network editor.
Args: ctx: MCP context. node_path: Node path. r: Red (0.0-1.0). g: Green (0.0-1.0). b: Blue (0.0-1.0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | Yes | ||
| g | Yes | ||
| r | 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?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes the action itself. It does not mention side effects, persistence, reversibility, error behavior, or whether the change affects only the editor or also render outputs. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 appropriately sized: a single, clear purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. Every line earns its place, with no filler or repetition. The key information is front-loaded.
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 simple setter, the description covers the action and all parameters, and it clarifies the color domain. However, it lacks error behavior, path format, reversibility information, and any return value description. With no annotations or output schema, those gaps remain unfilled, leaving the description merely adequate for a straightforward tool.
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 does so by enumerating each parameter with semantic meaning: node_path as 'Node path', and r/g/b as color components with a valid range of 0.0-1.0. This adds real value beyond the bare schema. However, node_path semantics are thin and the path format is not specified.
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 and resource: 'Set a node's color in the network editor.' This clearly communicates what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_node_position or set_node_flags, but the focus on 'color' and RGB parameters makes it unambiguous in context.
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 alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools. The short phrase 'in the network editor' provides minor context, but not enough for an agent to make an informed choice among the many set_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.