Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

node_find

Search TouchDesigner node networks recursively by name, type, or family. Narrow results with filters like depth, detail, and output format to locate matching nodes.

Instructions

Search for nodes matching name/type/family, recursively.

path (str | None): Root container to search (default '/').

name (str | None): Case-insensitive substring on node name.

type (str | None): Exact operator type (case-insensitive).

family (str | None): 'CHOP'/'TOP'/'DAT'/'SOP'/...

depth (int | None): Max recursion depth (default 5).

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
pathNo
typeNo
depthNo
detailNo
familyNo
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

A4.1/5.0
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 does a solid job: it discloses recursion, case-insensitive matching, exact-type matching, default depth, and detail/response format behavior. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the search framing strongly implies it; a small transparency gap remains.

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 description is a single purpose line followed by tight, information-dense parameter definitions. Every line adds value, and the structure front-loads the core purpose before diving into parameter specifics.

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?

The description covers every parameter with defaults and options, which is strong for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema. It does not explicitly describe the return structure or error behavior, but the detail options and response_format field give a meaningful picture of what to expect.

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 documenting all 7 parameters with defaults, types, case-sensitivity, allowed values, and output formatting choices. This is exactly the kind of semantic detail an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific action ('Search for nodes') with clear criteria ('matching name/type/family') and recursive behavior. This clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like node_list or node_get.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need to find nodes by name, type, family, or path recursively. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer node_find over alternatives such as node_list or node_get, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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