Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bridge_restore

Restore a TouchDesigner backup into the show folder as a new restored sibling file, preserving the live file with never-overwrite safety.

Instructions

Restore a backup into the show folder as a NEW restored..toe sibling (never overwrites the live file).

backup (<class 'str'>): Absolute path to a backup .toe.

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
backupYes
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the key side effect: a new restored file is created and the live file is never overwritten. It also signals response cost via 'token-cheap' for YAML, though it does not cover failure modes or permissions.

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 first sentence leads with the core behavior and safety guarantee, and the following parameter lines are compact and information-dense. Every sentence contributes either behavioral context or parameter semantics with no 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics well: output format, detail levels, file placement, and non-destructive behavior. It stops short of describing exact return fields or error conditions, but the missing detail is not critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: type, allowed values, defaults, and semantics. This includes explaining what 'summary' and 'minimal' actually return, which is materially more than the raw schema provides.

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 description names a specific verb ('Restore'), a specific resource (a backup .toe), and a precise outcome (a new restored.<N>.toe sibling in the show folder). The 'never overwrites the live file' qualifier distinguishes this from any mutation-style sibling and makes its purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The action is clearly a restore operation, so when to call it is implied by the name and description. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with related bridge tools such as bridge_snapshot or bridge_save_increment, and it gives no exclusions or preconditions.

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