Configure render parameters on a ROP node by passing parameter name-value pairs to control Houdini render output.
Set render parameters on a ROP node.
Args: node_path: ROP node path. settings: Parameter name-value pairs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settings | 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 behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether settings merge with or replace existing values, whether the node is recooked/dirtied, whether it requires an active Houdini connection, or what happens on an invalid parameter name. 'Set' implies mutation but no consequences are described.
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 one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; no filler. The docstring-style Args section adds little beyond the already-visible schema property names, but it is brief and not wasteful.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs the description to do more work than this. It omits side effects, error behavior, and any differentiation from the several parameter-setting siblings in the toolset.
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 is the only source of parameter meaning: node_path is identified as a ROP node path and settings as name-value pairs. However, it does not specify the expected key format (Houdini parm names?), accepted value types, or whether unknown keys error out, leaving the arbitrary-object parameter underspecified.
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 verb and resource: sets render parameters on a ROP node. That is clearer than a generic 'set parameter', but the description never distinguishes it from siblings like set_parameter, set_parameters, or setup_render, which an agent could easily reach for instead.
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 versus set_parameter/set_parameters, nor prerequisites such as the node needing to be a ROP or the Houdini session being connected. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.