Export a TOP frame from TouchDesigner to a file. Let the file extension determine the format (PNG, JPG, EXR, etc.) and optionally set JPEG quality.
Export a TOP frame to a file (extension picks format).
path (<class 'str'>): TOP operator path.
save_path (<class 'str'>): Output path (.png/.jpg/.exr...).
quality (int | None): JPEG quality 0-100 (default 90).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| quality | No | ||
| save_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 must disclose side effects and behaviors. It only states 'export', implying a file write, but doesn't mention overwriting behavior, directory creation, or that it may cook the TOP. No error conditions or permission issues are noted. This is minimal disclosure for a write operation.
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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a parameter list. Each parameter gets a line with type and explanation. No filler. The most critical info (format from extension) is front-loaded in the purpose sentence.
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 simple 3-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks any information about return values (though no output schema exists), error handling, or when to use this versus render_screenshot. Without usage guidelines and behavioral caveats, it's only minimally complete.
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?
The description fully explains all three parameters: path (TOP operator path), save_path (output path with format hint), and quality (JPEG quality with default). This is well beyond the schema which has no property descriptions. The extension-picks-format clarification adds important semantic context.
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 clearly states the action (export a TOP frame) and the resource (TOP frame) and that format is determined by file extension. It distinguishes from render_screenshot by using 'export' and 'TOP frame', but doesn't explicitly mention that distinction, so it's a clear but not fully differentiated purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like render_screenshot or node_snapshot. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active TOP), or whether it's for batch or single exports. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.