Read text or table DAT content from TouchDesigner using a DAT operator path, with optional row range to control the returned data.
Read text or table DAT content.
path (<class 'str'>): DAT operator path.
row_start (int | None): First table row (default 0).
row_end (int | None): Last table row, exclusive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| row_end | No | ||
| row_start | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Read" implies a non-mutating operation, and the row range parameters with "Last table row, exclusive" add useful behavioral detail. However, the description omits return format, error behavior, and what happens when row_start or row_end are null. Additionally, the description says row_start defaults to 0 while the schema sets its default to null, which creates ambiguity.
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 compact and well-structured: one purpose sentence followed by one line per parameter. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple read tool with three parameters, the description is mostly adequate: it states the purpose and documents all parameters. But because there is no output schema and no annotations, the missing return format, ambiguous null handling, and lack of sibling guidance leave noticeable gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret the result.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all three parameters with types and meanings, including the useful "exclusive" qualifier for row_end. The main flaw is the row_start default mismatch with the schema and the lack of a stated default for row_end.
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 begins with a clear verb and resource: "Read text or table DAT content." It identifies the tool as a DAT-reading operation and names the target with "DAT operator path." It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like data_dat_write or data_chop, but the resource class (DAT) is enough to distinguish it in most cases.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention data_dat_write for writing, nor does it explain that other data_* tools target different operator types. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and the minimal purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.