Toggle USD Hydra display purposes (proxy, guide, render, materials, procedurals) in Houdini's LOP viewer to control which geometry types are shown.
USD purpose vis on the LOP viewer: proxy/guide/render/materials/procedurals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guide | No | ||
| proxy | No | ||
| render | No | ||
| viewer | No | ||
| materials | No | ||
| procedurals | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects, permissions, whether flags toggle or set, or what happens to omitted parameters, leaving the mutation profile entirely opaque.
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 fragment is short but under-specified rather than concise; it omits essential operational detail. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place for a 6-parameter 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?
With 6 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but input semantics and usage context are still missing.
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 description merely repeats the purpose names already present in the schema, without defining what each boolean controls or what the 'viewer' string expects. It adds no semantic meaning beyond the property names.
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 resource area (USD purpose visibility on the LOP viewer) and enumerates the purposes, but the fragment lacks a clear verb and uses the abbreviation 'vis', leaving the exact operation ambiguous. It names a relevant sibling domain but does not fully distinguish itself from tools like set_viewport_display.
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 on when to use this tool versus set_viewport_display, set_hydra_renderer, or other viewport tools. The only context is an implied LOP viewer scope, with no conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.