Examine a specific USD layer by index in a Houdini USD stack to check its contents and diagnose composition issues. Use path and layer_index to target the layer.
Inspect a specific USD layer by index in the stack.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| layer_index | No |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Inspect' implies a read, but the description never confirms read-only behavior, permission needs, or how the layer_index default resolves against the stack. The output schema exists, so return format needn't be covered, but the operational context is still thin.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the under-specification rather than being a flaw of structure itself.
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 is present, so return values need not be explained, but with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description should do far more. It omits what 'path' means, how layer_index behaves, and when this tool is the right choice, leaving an agent under-equipped for a two-parameter 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the schema has no field descriptions at all. The description only touches on 'by index' (layer_index) and says nothing about what 'path' represents or how it relates to the index, nor what the default 0 implies. The description does not compensate for the total documentation gap.
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 clear verb (inspect) and resource (USD layer) and notes the index-in-stack scope, which is more than a tautology. However, it gives no differentiation from the many related USD tools in the sibling list (e.g. lop_layer_info, get_usd_composition), so an agent cannot easily tell which 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lop_layer_info or the other USD inspection tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no named sibling are provided; the agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.