Get errors and warnings for a node, optionally including its children, to diagnose issues in TouchDesigner renders.
Errors/warnings for a node, optionally including children.
path (<class 'str'>): Full path of the operator.
includeChildren (bool | None): Also collect child errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| includeChildren | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state side effects, permissions, error handling for invalid paths, or the shape of the response. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that could still have unexpected behavior.
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 extremely concise: one line for purpose and two lines for parameters. Every sentence earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameters adequately. However, it omits usage context (when to choose this vs node_errors_deep) and does not describe return values, which could be relevant for an agent. This is a moderate gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain both parameters: path (full path of the operator) and includeChildren (bool or None, with meaning 'Also collect child errors'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type declarations.
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 clearly states it retrieves errors/warnings for a node, with an optional includeChildren flag. It specifies the resource (node) and the action (retrieve errors), but does not differentiate from the sibling node_errors_deep, which likely performs a similar but deeper operation.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus node_errors_deep or other error-related tools. The description implies a simple read but provides no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.