Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

node_set_flags

Set display, render, or bypass flags on a TouchDesigner node by specifying its path and desired boolean states.

Instructions

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.

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
pathYes
bypassNo
detailNo
renderNo
displayNo
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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add behavioral context via detail (summary truncates long lists to 25 + count; minimal gives top-level scalars only) and response_format (yaml is token-cheap, json available). However, it does not disclose side-effect semantics, such as what null means for a flag, whether unspecified flags are preserved, whether changes persist, or error behavior on an invalid path.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a compact, structured list with one line per parameter, including type, default, and valid values. The main verb and target are front-loaded, and there is no filler. It is only slightly repetitive in the three flag lines, which is acceptable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain what the call returns. It partially does through detail and response_format, which describe output verbosity and serialization, but it never states what the payload actually contains (e.g., updated flags, node status, or full node info). It also omits null semantics, prerequisites, and error handling, leaving an agent unable to fully predict the outcome.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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, and it fully documents all six parameters: path is the full operator path, display/render/bypass are booleans, and detail and response_format list valid values with defaults. The flag descriptions are somewhat tautological, but the detail/response_format explanations add real meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 description states a clear verb ('Set') with a specific resource ('display / render / bypass flags on a node') and then enumerates exactly which flags can be set. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous even without explicitly naming sibling alternatives like node_get or par_set.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what conditions select it. There are no exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., node path must exist), or references to sibling tools such as node_get for reading flags. The usage context is only implied by the imperative verb.

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