Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

node_create

Create a new operator of a specified type within a TouchDesigner COMP, auto-placing it to the right of existing siblings. Specify the parent path and operator type to instantiate the node, with optional naming and response format control.

Instructions

Create an operator in a parent COMP (e.g. 'noiseCHOP'). Auto-placed to the right of siblings.

parentPath (<class 'str'>): Full path of the parent COMP.

type (<class 'str'>): Operator type string (e.g. 'noiseCHOP').

name (str | None): Desired name; TD assigns one 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
typeYes
detailNo
parentPathYes
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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-placement to the right of siblings and output format options (yaml/json) but omits critical details such as return value structure, error handling when parentPath is invalid, permissions required, or reversibility of the mutation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, leading with the core action and then listing parameters in a readable format. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter list includes type annotations that are somewhat verbose. Overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., created node path or confirmation), error conditions for invalid parent paths, or any constraints on name/type. These gaps make it inadequate for an agent to call confidently.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with types, examples, and defaults (e.g., 'full (default) | summary...' for detail). It clarifies optional behavior (name assignment, response_format) and provides a concrete type example, adding substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Create an operator') with a resource type ('parent COMP') and an example type ('noiseCHOP'). The verb 'Create' distinguishes it from read/list/copy siblings like node_get, node_list, and node_copy, so an agent can immediately tell its purpose.

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?

The description implies usage for creation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for related operations. An agent must infer that creation is the sole use case.

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