Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bridge_save_increment

Save without overwriting: writes your project as a new numbered .toe file, keeping previous versions intact.

Instructions

SAFE save: write the next numbered Show.<N+1>.toe and structurally refuse to overwrite an existing file. The preferred way to persist bridge edits.

timeout (float | None): 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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core safety guarantee ('structurally refuse to overwrite') and the 'SAFE' label, but does not explain behavior on timeout, error handling, or what happens if the bridge is unreachable. It also omits any description of the return value or side effects beyond file creation.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then lists parameters with defaults in a clear, scannable format. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

As a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what success looks like (e.g., returns the new file path) and any prerequisites (like bridge_ensure_alive). It also does not cover failure modes or what happens on timeout. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 explaining all three parameters: timeout (float, default 45), detail (full/summary/minimal with behavior), and response_format (yaml/json). It adds defaults and value semantics that the schema does not provide, making each parameter actionable.

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 opens with 'SAFE save: write the next numbered Show.<N+1>.toe' which is a specific verb and resource, and adds the structural guarantee of refusing to overwrite. It also positions itself as 'the preferred way to persist bridge edits,' distinguishing it from potential sibling tools like bridge_snapshot or bridge_restore without needing to name them.

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 it is 'the preferred way to persist bridge edits,' which strongly implies this is the go‑to tool for saving increments and that alternatives exist. However, it does not explicitly name the alternatives or give conditions for when to use them instead, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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