Set a TouchDesigner parameter to expression mode with a Python expression, enabling dynamic control during live rendering.
Put a parameter into expression mode.
path (<class 'str'>): Operator path.
name (<class 'str'>): Parameter name.
expression (<class 'str'>): Python expression string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| expression | Yes |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the parameter is put into expression mode, without revealing side effects, reversibility, whether existing values are replaced, or what happens to the parameter during the mode change. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the following parameter list largely duplicates the input schema and adds little beyond what the schema already displays. It is not bloated, but the extra lines do not meaningfully earn their 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?
For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation. It does not explain what expression mode is, how the expression interacts with the operator, or what a successful call returns, making it ambiguous in the context of the sibling par_* tools.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds only minimal glosses: 'Operator path', 'Parameter name', and 'Python expression string.' 'Parameter name' is tautological, 'Operator path' is vague about whose path, and 'Python expression string' does not explain how the expression is used or formatted. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter descriptions.
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 a specific action: 'Put a parameter into expression mode.' This clearly identifies the verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like par_set or par_pulse, which deal with values and pulses. However, it does not explicitly explain what 'expression mode' means or contrast itself with those siblings by name.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as par_set or par_pulse. It simply states the operation without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.