List child nodes of a TouchDesigner container, with optional filters for operator family and recursion depth, to inspect scene hierarchies.
List children of a container, optionally filtered by family.
path (str | None): Parent container path (default '/').
family (str | None): Filter by operator family (CHOP/TOP/...).
depth (int | None): Recursion depth; 1 = direct children.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| depth | No | ||
| family | No |
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 must carry the behavioral load. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and parameter semantics are stated, but it does not disclose what happens for invalid paths, ordering, or whether depth None means unbounded recursion. This is a moderate gap for a simple list operation.
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 compact and front-loaded, with one clear purpose sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Every line adds useful information without repetition or filler.
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 tool with only three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation requirements well. Minor omissions like depth default and error behavior prevent a perfect score, but nothing essential is missing for basic usage.
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 bare schema. It adds meaningful detail for all three parameters: path default, family filter meaning, and depth semantics with an example unit ('1 = direct children'). It does not specify depth's default or full behavior, so it is not perfect.
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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List children of a container.' The optional family filter and parameter hints make the operation specific. This is easily distinguished from sibling tools like node_get and node_find by its focus on container children.
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?
The description establishes clear context: use it to list children under a path with optional family and depth filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the operation is obvious enough that an agent can infer the right situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.