Set one or more parameter values on a TouchDesigner operator by providing its path and a mapping of parameter names to values.
Set one or more parameter values on an operator.
path (<class 'str'>): Operator path.
values (dict[str, typing.Any]): Mapping of parameter name -> value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| values | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to carry the safety or side-effect profile, so the description bears the full burden. It only states that values are set, with no mention of whether this mutates the operator, whether values are overwritten or merged, whether authorization is needed, or what the tool returns. This is minimal for a setter.
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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose followed by concise parameter definitions. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no repetition of the schema's type information.
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?
The description covers both required parameters and the core action, making a basic call possible. However, it omits return behavior, side effects, and any operator/path context, and with no annotations or output schema these omissions leave some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this tool is appropriate.
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 supply parameter meaning, and it does: 'path' is the operator path and 'values' is a mapping of parameter name to value. This adds real semantic value over the raw schema, though it does not elaborate on value formats or allowed parameter names.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and clearly identifies the resource ('parameter values on an operator'). It is sufficiently clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool par_set_expression, so it does not earn a 5.
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 such as par_set_expression, par_pulse, or node_set_flags. The intended invocation context is implied but never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.