Measure file-bridge round-trip time and verify live TouchDesigner values by evaluating an expression (default absTime.seconds).
Round-trip canary over the file bridge: rtt_ms + a live TD value (absTime.seconds by default).
expr (str | None): Expression to eval (default absTime.seconds).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expr | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool evaluates an expression and returns rtt_ms plus a live TD value, which is useful behavioral information. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state whether this is read-only, whether the expression can have side effects, or what happens on invalid expressions.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core behavior stated in the first sentence. The term 'live TD value' is slightly ambiguous but the overall structure is efficient.
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?
The description covers the main return values and the parameter, but lacks guidance on side effects, failure modes, or how this tool relates to diagnostic siblings. Given no annotations and no output schema, more context would be needed for confident invocation.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds the meaning of the 'expr' parameter and its default value (absTime.seconds). It could be clearer about the evaluation context, but it provides the essential semantics.
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 identifies the tool's purpose as a round-trip canary over the file bridge, returning rtt_ms and a live TD value. This is specific enough to distinguish it from bridge_status and system_ping, though the jargon ('canary', 'file bridge') is not unpacked.
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 implies a diagnostic/latency-check context but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like system_ping, bridge_status, or measure_fps. No alternatives or when-not conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.