Retrieve complete parameter metadata—mode, bounds, and menu names—for any TouchDesigner operator path, enabling full inspection of all parameters at once.
Full metadata (mode, bounds, menu names) for every par.
path (<class 'str'>): Operator path.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the kind of output (mode, bounds, menu names) and scope (every par), which is useful. However, it never explicitly states that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention errors, output shape, or performance implications.
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-loads the main behavior in the first sentence. The second sentence is necessary to clarify the only parameter, but it redundantly restates the string type already present in the schema, which keeps it from being a perfect 5.
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 one-parameter read-style tool, this is minimally adequate: it names the input and the expected metadata fields. But with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks response structure, path format guidance, and any mention of what 'par' means or how the result relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer important details.
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. It adds one meaningful clarification: path is an 'Operator path,' which is more informative than the schema's bare title 'Path.' Still, it does not specify the expected format or provide an example, so compensation is partial.
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 the tool's result clearly: full metadata (mode, bounds, menu names) for every par under the given path. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'return' or 'get,' and it does not contrast itself with sibling tools such as par_get, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like par_get or par_info. The phrase 'every par' implies broad scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.