Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

measure_gpu

Verify GPU utilization and VRAM usage to confirm TouchDesigner is actively rendering, detecting when it appears healthy but is not.

Instructions

GPU util/VRAM (NVIDIA, measured host-side so TD never blocks) + whether TD is really rendering. The 'looks healthy but isn't' detector.

require_render (bool | None): Error instead of returning empty stats when TD is not rendering and no GPU numbers are available (default false).

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
require_renderNo
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it notes host-side measurement (TD never blocks), NVIDIA specificity, and the require_render error behavior when TD is not rendering and no GPU numbers exist. It does not cover every edge case like permission requirements or exact failure modes, but it is strong for a read-only measurement tool.

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 main purpose is stated in one dense, high-signal sentence, and the parameter documentation is compact and directly useful. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core invocation concerns: when to use it, what the parameters do, and even output granularity via detail levels. It could optionally include a sample or explicit return field names, but the existing description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation in most cases.

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%, yet the description fully documents all three parameters with types, defaults, allowed values, and behavioral implications. This adds essential meaning that the bare input schema completely lacks.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names the resource (GPU util/VRAM on NVIDIA) and the exact diagnostic purpose (checking whether TD is truly rendering), with the memorable framing 'looks healthy but isn't detector.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling measure_* tools like measure_fps and measure_verify.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when this tool is useful—when GPU utilization and actual rendering status need to be checked without blocking TD. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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