Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bridge_open_show

Launch a resolved .toe show in TouchDesigner, with optional force to start even if TouchDesigner is already running.

Instructions

Launch the resolved show .toe in TouchDesigner (refuses if TD is already running unless force).

force (bool | None): Launch even if TD is running.

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
forceNo
detailNo
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a key trait: refusal when TD is running unless force is set. It also reveals response-shaping behavior via detail and response_format (yaml default, token-cheap). It stops short of describing exact error/return semantics, but the most decision-relevant behavior is explicit.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact parameter list with no filler. Each clause adds actionable information, and default values are integrated efficiently.

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?

Given zero annotations, zero output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the call contract well: behavior, all params, and output format/verbosity. The main omission is explaining what 'resolved show' means or error behavior on refusal, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly with the information provided.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by documenting all three parameters with concrete meanings and allowed values: force overrides the running-TD guard, detail controls list truncation/level, and response_format selects yaml or json. This is exactly the semantic weight the schema lacks.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first clause 'Launch the resolved show .toe in TouchDesigner' uses a specific verb and resource, immediately distinguishing this from state/health bridge tools like bridge_status or bridge_ensure_alive. The refusal condition adds concrete scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states clear launch context and the force condition: if TD is already running, the tool refuses unless force=true. It does not name sibling alternatives, but no sibling appears to perform the same launch/show action, so the context is sufficient without explicit exclusions.

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