Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bridge_status

Check the live status of a TouchDesigner bridge connection, including heartbeat age, project, and build. Choose detail and response format for quick health monitoring.

Instructions

Bridge heartbeat state: alive, age (s), project, build.

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
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (alive, age, project, build) and the effect of the 'detail' parameter on output length. It also mentions that the default response format is YAML for token efficiency, which adds transparency. It doesn't mention any side effects, but as a status read tool, that's fine. More detailed behavior like error handling is not disclosed, but the core is covered.

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 focused and front-loaded with the core purpose, then the parameter details. The parameter documentation adds length but is necessary given no schema coverage. No extraneous information; each sentence earns its place.

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?

With a simple tool (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameters, and default formats. It could be more complete if it explicitly stated when to use this over the many bridge-related siblings, but for its simplicity it is quite complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, leaving the description to fully explain the parameters. It does this well: it explains 'detail' with the three valid values (full, summary, minimal) and their effects, and 'response_format' with yaml and json options. This is directly useful for an agent deciding values.

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 what the tool does: it reports bridge heartbeat state, including fields like alive, age, project, and build. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like 'system_info' or 'bridge_health' by focusing specifically on heartbeat state, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 description implies the tool is for checking bridge status, which is clear given the name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'bridge_health' or 'system_info'. No exclusions or conditions are given, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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