Execute custom TouchDesigner commands by sending raw bridge operations with an opcode and payload. For power users who need direct control during live rendering.
Raw bridge send: op + payload (eval/python/...). For power users only.
op (<class 'str'>): Bridge opcode (eval, python, ...).
payload (dict[str, typing.Any]): Payload dict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| op | Yes | ||
| payload | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It gives no indication of safety, side effects, error behavior, or response format. 'Raw bridge send' implies low-level and potentially dangerous operations, but that is not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief, consisting of a single main sentence and minimal parameter descriptions. It is concise, though perhaps too terse for the complexity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-level, potentially powerful tool with no output schema and complex nested payload. The description provides almost no context: no example usage, no explanation of supported opcodes beyond vague hints, no mention of error handling or security considerations. It is severely incomplete for an agent to call correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists 'op' as 'Bridge opcode (eval, python, ...)' and 'payload' as 'Payload dict', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema property names, but it does not explain allowed values, structure, or constraints beyond the examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description calls it a 'Raw bridge send' and mentions op and payload, but does not specify what the tool actually accomplishes or how it differs from the many bridge_* siblings. It is vague and does not clarify the purpose for an agent beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_router_call or bridge_state. The only hint is 'For power users only', which is a warning, not a usage guideline. An agent cannot determine under what circumstances to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.