Point a Houdini viewport at an OBJ camera or USD prim by specifying its camera path, so you can inspect the scene from the desired camera.
Look through an OBJ camera or a USD prim (e.g. /world/cam).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| viewer | No | ||
| camera_path | Yes | ||
| camera_prim | 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 behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or how the viewport state changes, leaving the agent with only a one-line functional statement.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for the surface-level statement it makes, even though it lacks detail elsewhere.
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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and only one sentence, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but parameter meaning and behavioral context remain largely 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% for three parameters, so the description must compensate. It gives a useful hint for camera paths ('OBJ camera or a USD prim') but does not explain the 'viewer' parameter or clarify the distinction between 'camera_path' and 'camera_prim'.
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 specific action (look through) and resource (OBJ camera or USD prim), so an agent can understand the tool's basic purpose. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling viewport/camera tools such as set_viewport_direction or lookdev_camera.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'OBJ camera or a USD prim' hints at valid input types but does not say when this tool is preferable to other camera or viewport controls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.