Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

node_clear_script_errors

Clear a node's script-error log, then optionally force a re-cook to verify whether the error is recurring or stale.

Instructions

Clear a node's accumulated script-error log, force a cook, re-read. recurring: true is proof of a LIVE problem; a one-off hit was stale.

path (<class 'str'>): Operator path.

force_cook (bool | None): cook(force=True) after clearing (default true).

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
pathYes
detailNo
force_cookNo
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool clears logs, force-cooks, and re-reads, and that recurring errors are meaningful while one-offs are stale. It also explains output detail options (full, summary, minimal), adding behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether clearing is irreversible or affects other logs, missing some depth.

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?

Efficient, front-loaded action sequence with a diagnostic heuristic at the beginning. Parameter docs are compact, each earning its place with default and trade-off notes. No fluff.

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 4 params, no enums, and no output schema, description covers the operation, parameter semantics, and output options. Complete enough for most calls, but could specify expected return format/fields beyond detail levels, and mention error handling (e.g., if node not found).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the purpose of each parameter (path for operator path, force_cook for forced cook, detail for output verbosity, response_format for yaml/json), including defaults and trade-offs (yaml is token-cheap). This exceeds schema's bare type info, though it could give more examples or constraints for path.

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?

States a specific verb (clear) and resource (node's script-error log) with an explicit action sequence (clear, force cook, re-read). Distinguishes from siblings like node_errors and node_errors_deep, which are for reading errors, not clearing. The description also provides a diagnostic heuristic (recurring error vs stale) that clarifies intent.

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?

Implies usage through the 'force a cook, re-read' sequence and the recurring vs stale heuristic, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like node_errors or node_errors_deep. It gives context on when to use (to confirm live problems) but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

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