Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

node_copy

Copy a TouchDesigner node to a new parent path, with optional rename and response detail control.

Instructions

Copy a node into a destination parent.

sourcePath (<class 'str'>): Path of the operator to copy.

destParentPath (<class 'str'>): Destination parent COMP path.

name (str | None): Name for the copy; TD assigns if omitted.

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
nameNo
detailNo
sourcePathYes
destParentPathYes
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds meaningful details: TD auto-assigns the name if omitted, summary output truncates long lists to 25 with a count, minimal returns only top-level scalars, and YAML is token-cheap. It does not cover conflict/recursion behavior, but the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every subsequent line documents one parameter or a relevant behavior. There is no filler or redundant restating of schema information, since the schema itself has no descriptions.

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?

All parameters are covered, required fields are clear, and response format options are provided. Although there is no output schema and the exact response body is not specified, the detail and response_format parameters give an agent sufficient guidance. Path syntax and error behavior could be more explicit, but they are not critical gaps for this tool.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each of the 5 parameters with types, defaults, allowed values, and behavior. It adds far more meaning than the bare schema property names.

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 states a specific verb ('Copy'), a resource ('a node'), and a destination ('parent'), with source and destination path parameters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_create or node_rename.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The core usage is clear from the copy semantics and path parameters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as node_create or node_rename, nor any exclusions. The context implies the use case without spelling it out.

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