Set display, render, bypass, template, or lock flags on a Houdini node by path to control its scene visibility, output, and behavior.
Set flags on a node.
Args: ctx: MCP context. node_path: Node path. display: Display flag. render: Render flag. bypass: Bypass flag. template: Template flag. lock: Lock flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lock | No | ||
| bypass | No | ||
| render | No | ||
| display | No | ||
| template | No | ||
| node_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.24.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this mutates node state, whether omitted/null flags leave existing values untouched (the schema defaults to null), or whether the operation is reversible.
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?
Front-loaded with a one-line summary, but the Args block is largely a restatement of the schema. Nothing is egregiously bloated, yet most lines don't earn their 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?
For a mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits flag semantics, null-handling behavior, and any indication of the effect of the operation.
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, but its param notes are tautological ('display: Display flag', 'render: Render flag'), adding no meaning beyond the parameter names. Critically, the null defaults — likely meaning 'don't change this flag' — are never explained.
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?
'Set flags on a node' states a clear verb and resource, and the args list names the specific flag types (display, render, bypass, template, lock). However, 'flags' is a generic term and the description never distinguishes this tool from the sibling set_cop_flags or explains what kind of flags these are.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as set_cop_flags. The docstring is purely an argument inventory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.