Create or edit a Dome Light LOP in Houdini for look development, isolated under mcp_* to avoid scene conflicts.
Create/edit a Dome Light LOP under mcp_* isolation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | mcp_dome | |
| color | No | ||
| texture | No | ||
| exposure | No | ||
| primpath | No | ||
| input_path | No | ||
| parent_path | No | /stage |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure and fails to meet it. It does not say what 'edit' does to existing values, whether creation is idempotent, what 'mcp_* isolation' protects against, or what permissions are needed for a mutation tool.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is good structure, but at this length it omits necessary information rather than being appropriately sized for a 7-parameter mutation tool.
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?
Given 7 undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and a create/edit mutation surface, the definition is far too thin. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but nearly everything else an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.
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% across 7 parameters, and the description names none of them (color, texture, exposure, primpath, parent_path, etc.). With no annotations and no schema text, an agent has no guidance on parameter meaning or interaction between them.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create/edit a Dome Light LOP') that clearly separates it from sibling lookdev tools like lookdev_camera and lookdev_preview_surface. It stops short of full sibling differentiation, and 'mcp_* isolation' is jargon that an agent cannot interpret without external knowledge.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for choosing it over create_lop_node or list_lights. The only contextual hint is the 'mcp_* isolation' naming convention, which is unexplained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.