Get SOP point counts, positions, and bounds by specifying an operator path in TouchDesigner. Use this to query geometry data directly from any MCP client during live rendering sessions.
SOP point count/positions and bounds.
path (<class 'str'>): SOP operator path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and the only behavioral implication is a read operation inferred from 'point count/positions and bounds.' It discloses nothing about side effects, read-only guarantees, behavior on an invalid or non-geometry path, or performance implications on large point counts.
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 four words plus a parameter line saying 'path (<class 'str'>): SOP operator path,' which largely restates the schema's type and title. This is under-specification rather than conciseness; the structure does not earn its brevity because the summary sentence carries almost no functional information.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry the burden of explaining return values and invocation requirements. It hints at the return payload (point count, positions, bounds) and documents the sole required parameter, but leaves unstated what a valid path looks like, what happens on failure, and whether the call is a safe read operation.
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 itself has 0% description coverage — the parameter is only a string titled 'Path.' The tool description adds the essential clarification that the string is an 'SOP operator path,' which is genuine added meaning beyond the schema. However, it omits path format details (absolute vs relative, separators, wildcards) and provides no example value.
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 is a verbless noun phrase, 'SOP point count/positions and bounds,' which identifies the subject matter but never states that the tool retrieves or returns anything. It hints at the resource type (SOP, contrasting with data_chop/data_top/data_dat) but leaves the actual operation to inference, and the fragment could even be misread as a setter given that data_dat_write exists as a sibling.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling family data_chop/data_top/data_dat/data_pixel_sample or from node_get/par_get, so an agent must guess which data-retrieval tool fits. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.