Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bridge_ensure_alive

Opens the TouchDesigner show if needed and waits for the bridge heartbeat, returning the alive status. Use it to confirm the connection is ready before running other commands.

Instructions

Open the show in TD (if needed) and wait for the bridge heartbeat. Returns alive status.

timeout (float | None): Max seconds to wait (default 45).

detail (str | None): full (default) | summary (long lists cut to 25 + count) | minimal (top-level scalars only).

response_format (str | None): yaml (default, token-cheap) | json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNo
timeoutNo
response_formatNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Detail"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Response Format"
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a side effect (opening the show) and a waiting behavior with a timeout, which is useful. However, it does not describe timeout/failure behavior, whether opening the show changes persistent TD state, or what 'alive status' concretely contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The main behavior is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by compact one-line parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, waiting behavior, parameter controls, and return concept. The main remaining gap is a precise specification of the alive-status result shape, though the detail and response_format options mitigate this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description documents all three parameters with defaults and allowed values: timeout has max-wait seconds, detail explains full/summary/minimal behavior, and response_format explains yaml/json with a token-cheap note. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation: open the show in TD if needed, wait for the bridge heartbeat, and return alive status. It is clearly about ensuring the bridge is alive, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status/health tools like bridge_status or bridge_health.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus bridge_status, bridge_health, bridge_open_show, or other bridge_* alternatives. The phrase 'if needed' is a behavioral conditional, not a usage recommendation or exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools