Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

connection_create

Create a connection between two TouchDesigner operators by specifying source and destination paths, with optional output/input indices, detail level, and response format.

Instructions

Alias of conn.create (kept for MCP-side compat).

fromPath (<class 'str'>): Source operator path.

toPath (<class 'str'>): Destination operator path.

fromOutput (int | None): Source output index (default 0).

toInput (int | None): Destination input index (default 0).

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
toPathYes
toInputNo
fromPathYes
fromOutputNo
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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is destructive, what response is returned, or any error behavior. The only behavioral hints are the alias statement and the 'token-cheap' note about response_format, which is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 organized as a clean parameter list, with the alias statement front-loaded. Every line adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema information since the schema lacks descriptions.

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?

All six parameters are documented well, but the description omits a plain-language statement of what the tool does, when to use it, and what the response looks like. Given no annotations and no output schema, these gaps matter for correct selection and invocation, though parameter filling is fully supported.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: fromPath/toPath as operator paths, fromOutput/toInput defaults, detail values with exact summary behavior, and response_format with yaml default and token-cheap note. It also clarifies the schema's null defaults into meaningful defaults like 0, full, and yaml.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as 'Alias of conn.create' and lists source/destination operator paths, which implies connection creation, but it never directly states what the tool does (e.g., 'creates a connection between two operators'). It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling conn_create, leaving the purpose largely inferential.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage hint is the aliasing note 'kept for MCP-side compat,' which suggests a compatibility purpose but does not explain when to choose this tool over conn_create or other siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative selection guidance are provided.

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