Set display, render, or bypass flags on a TouchDesigner node by path to control its visibility and processing in real time.
Set display / render / bypass flags on a node.
path (<class 'str'>): Full path of the operator.
display (bool | None): Set display flag.
render (bool | None): Set render flag.
bypass (bool | None): Set bypass flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| bypass | No | ||
| render | No | ||
| display | 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 behavioral burden. It states that flags are set but does not disclose whether passing null leaves a flag unchanged, whether omitted flags are untouched, what side effects occur, or what a successful call returns. This is significant for a mutating tool.
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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter lines are compact with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
This is a relatively simple setter, and the inline parameter docs plus schema make it callable. However, the missing null semantics and lack of any return or error information leave moderate gaps, and there is no alternative-tool guidance.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description manually documents all four parameters with meaningful detail, especially 'path: Full path of the operator.' It adds context beyond the schema's raw types/titles, though the meaning of null for display/render/bypass is still not explained.
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 names a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('display / render / bypass flags on a node'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling node operations like node_create, node_get, or node_rename. It is not a tautology and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.
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 use case is implied by the description: call this when you need to set display, render, or bypass flags on a node. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools (e.g., par_set for other node properties), so an agent is left to infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.