Run HScript commands in a live Houdini session and return stdout/stderr to inspect scenes, cook, render, or automate tasks.
Execute an HScript command and return stdout/stderr.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only says stdout/stderr is returned. It omits that HScript commands can mutate scene state, whether there are safety or timing constraints, and how failures surface, all of which matter for an arbitrary command runner.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness shades into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and only one required parameter is present. Still, for an arbitrary-code execution tool with no annotations, the description omits mutation risk, environment context, and sibling differentiation, leaving real gaps.
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% and the single 'command' parameter has no description anywhere. The description does not clarify expected syntax (HScript vs Python vs MEL), escaping rules, or multi-line support, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare property name.
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 (Execute) and resource (HScript command) plus the output channel (stdout/stderr). However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling execute_houdini_code, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the two execution tools to pick.
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 the obvious alternative execute_houdini_code (or batch). The agent gets no basis for choosing this tool over its near-identical sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.