Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

layout_set_position

Set network-editor coordinates for one or more TouchDesigner nodes. Supply node paths with x and y values to reposition them in the layout.

Instructions

Set network-editor position of one or more nodes.

nodes (list[typing.Any]): [{path, x, y}, ...].

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
nodesYes
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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add some value by describing response_format ('yaml (default, token-cheap) | json') and the detail levels' effects on output truncation. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing positions, error behavior, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 terse and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by compact parameter definitions with no filler. Every line earns its place and directly helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description covers the full parameter surface and gives enough output-format context via detail and response_format. It does not specify coordinate units, path syntax, or error behavior, but for a simple setter with a clear parameter example, this is a minor gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents all three parameters: nodes as a list of {path, x, y} objects, detail with explicit allowed values and their output effects, and response_format with yaml/json choices and token implications. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 opening sentence clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Set network-editor position of one or more nodes.' It is easy to understand what the tool does, and the operation is distinct from siblings like layout_align. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it stops just short of a perfect score.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description documents parameters and output formats but never explains when to choose this tool over layout_align or other layout-related operations. An agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and parameter docs.

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