Skip to main content
Glama
GaNotchVFX

touchbridge

by GaNotchVFX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

project_export_tox

Export a TouchDesigner COMP to a .tox file, with optional overwrite control and response detail. Specify the component path and destination under the project folder.

Instructions

Save a COMP to a .tox. Never a .toe; never overwrites unless overwrite=true.

path (<class 'str'>): COMP operator path.

out (<class 'str'>): Destination .tox under the project folder.

overwrite (bool | None): Allow replacing an existing file.

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
outYes
pathYes
detailNo
overwriteNo
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well: it states the never-overwrite default, the .tox-only restriction, and the detail/response-format behavior. It stops short of describing failure modes or prerequisites, which is a minor gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two compact paragraphs front-load the core contract and then enumerate parameters in a scannable list. Every line earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with five parameters, the description is nearly complete: it defines inputs, output format, and safety constraints. It lacks explicit error/return-value semantics and prerequisites, so it is not fully self-sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

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 does: path, out, overwrite, detail (with exact truncation rules), and response_format (with default and token-cheap note) are all meaningfully explained beyond their bare types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific action (Save), the resource (COMP), and the target format (.tox), and adds an explicit negative scope ('Never a .toe'). This makes it immediately distinct from related export/import/snapshot tools even without comparing schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The tool's purpose as a .tox exporter is clear, and the overwrite flag gives conditional behavior, but it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer e.g. render_export or project_import_tox. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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