Retrieve complete metadata for a TouchDesigner operator, including its parameters, connections, and position, by providing the operator's full path.
Full metadata for one operator (params, connections, position).
path (<class 'str'>): Full path of the operator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 states the tool returns metadata but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it errors on nonexistent paths, what the response structure looks like, or any side effects. For a retrieval tool this is a moderate gap, but the lack of any behavioral context beyond 'returns metadata' keeps the score low.
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 very short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanation is minimal but relevant. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the parameter note more clearly.
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?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not clarify the path format, return value shape, or error behavior, which are essential for an agent to use this tool confidently. The presence of many sibling tools also increases the need for clearer differentiation.
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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description does mention 'path' and its meaning ('Full path of the operator'), which adds some value beyond the bare schema property name. However, it does not explain path format, whether it is a file path or node path, or any constraints, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 states a specific verb ('Full metadata for one operator') and resource ('operator'), which clearly identifies what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like node_list or node_find, but the phrase 'Full metadata for one operator' implies a single-entity retrieval distinct from listing or searching.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as node_list, node_find, or par_get. The description implies usage for retrieving metadata for a single operator, but it does not state exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.