Change Houdini's viewport display mode to wireframe, shaded, flat, matcap, or others, optionally targeting a specific pane.
Set the viewport shading mode.
Args: display_mode: One of 'wireframe', 'shaded', 'smooth', 'smooth_wire', 'hidden_line', 'flat', 'flat_wire', 'matcap', 'matcap_wire'. pane_name: Pane tab name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pane_name | No | ||
| display_mode | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and lists arguments; it does not explain side effects, whether it applies to the active pane when pane_name is null, or what the return behavior is. This is minimal and does not go beyond the obvious.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by an Args block. The display_mode options are presented in a readable list, and there is minimal redundancy with the schema. It is concise and well-structured, though not as tight as a two-sentence description.
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 tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens when pane_name is null, whether the tool applies to the current viewport or requires a specific pane, or what happens with an invalid display_mode. With no annotations and no output schema, an agent lacks the context needed to invoke the tool correctly in all situations.
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 provides a list of allowed display_mode values, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. For pane_name, it gives 'Pane tab name', which adds a hint but does not clarify the default behavior or format. Overall, it partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set the viewport shading mode.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like set_viewport_camera and set_viewport_direction. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with other viewport-related tools. The purpose implies usage when setting shading mode, but the description does not state any contextual rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.