Start timeline playback in TouchDesigner to control animation and rendering sequences. Choose output detail level and response format for the playback status.
Start timeline playback.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No | ||
| response_format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / properties / detailAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Detail"
+}Input schema / properties / response_formatAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Response Format"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Start timeline playback' without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, state changes, or whether the operation is safe or mutating. This is a meaningful gap for a command that presumably alters playback state.
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: one action sentence followed by two compact parameter specifications. Every sentence carries useful information, with the core action front-loaded and no filler.
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 tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, this is adequate but not complete. It lacks any mention of what the playback operation returns, whether it requires an existing timeline, or what happens if playback is already running. With no output schema, a bit more return/behavior context would be valuable.
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, and it does thoroughly. It explains detail's allowed values and defaults ('full', 'summary (long lists cut to 25 + count)', 'minimal (top-level scalars only)') and response_format's options (yaml default, token-cheap, json), adding meaning the schema lacks.
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 verb and resource: 'Start timeline playback.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like timeline_pause, timeline_get, and timeline_set, which cover other timeline operations.
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. It does not mention timeline_pause, timeline_get, timeline_set, or any conditions that would make one preferable, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.