Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bridge_router_call

Invoke any TouchDesigner router method directly when typed tools lack coverage, with selectable detail and response format. Destructive actions remain protected by safe mode.

Instructions

Raw router call for ANY router method (escape hatch; prefer the typed tools). Destructive methods stay gated by safe mode.

method (<class 'str'>): Router method name (e.g. 'node.get').

params (dict[str, typing.Any]): Method parameters as a dict.

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
methodYes
paramsNo
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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that destructive methods are gated by safe mode, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not describe error handling, side effects, or return value structure beyond the detail levels, but the detail parameter partially addresses response shape. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a compact list format for parameters that is easy to scan. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. It could be slightly more structured, but overall it is efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the high complexity of a raw router call and the lack of output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the parameters and mentions safe mode for destructive methods, but it does not explain the range of possible methods, error scenarios, or how the response varies by detail level in depth. Given the escape-hatch nature, some gaps are acceptable, but it could be more thorough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does provide examples for method, describes params as a dict, and explains detail and response_format options. However, it does not provide a full list of possible methods or parameter conventions, but it gives enough for a general understanding.

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 clearly states it is a raw router call for any method, serving as an escape hatch. It distinguishes itself by noting that typed tools are preferred, which helps set expectations. However, it could be more explicit about what the router itself is, but overall the purpose is clear.

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?

The description explicitly says to prefer the typed tools, implying this is for cases not covered by them or for advanced use. It also notes that destructive methods remain gated by safe mode, which is important context. However, it does not enumerate specific alternatives or scenarios when to use this over siblings, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer.

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