Create and assign a USD Preview Surface material to a prim in a live Houdini scene, setting color, metallic, and roughness for look development previews.
USD Preview Surface + assignmaterial under mcp_*.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | mcp_preview | |
| color | No | ||
| metallic | No | ||
| roughness | No | ||
| input_path | No | ||
| parent_path | No | /stage | |
| prim_pattern | No | /world/hero |
| 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. It does not state what happens to existing materials, whether the operation is destructive, what permissions or path constraints apply, or how the 'mcp_*' prefix behaves.
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 a single cryptic fragment. Although brief, it is under-specified rather than concise: the sentence does not earn its place because it fails to convey a clear operation or scope.
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?
With 7 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the definition is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input and behavioral context.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning for any parameter (name, color, metallic, roughness, input_path, parent_path, prim_pattern), so an agent receives no guidance beyond bare titles and defaults.
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 fragment 'USD Preview Surface + assignmaterial under mcp_*' names a resource type and an action, but no clear verb or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like lookdev_dome or lookdev_camera, leaving the agent to guess whether it creates, modifies, or applies materials.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of alternatives, preconditions, or contexts that select this tool over the many other lookdev and USD-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.