Skip to main content
Glama

Create Replicator (clone a template per data row)

create_replicator

Clone a template COMP once per row of a Table DAT using a Replicator COMP. Creates the replicator and optional template and table, then triggers re-replication to generate clones.

Instructions

Wire a Replicator COMP that clones a template COMP once per row of a Table DAT — TouchDesigner's idiomatic 'N copies from data' mechanism (menus, scoreboards, per-track decks, instanced panels). Resolves or creates the template COMP (omit template_path → a minimal container with a Text) and the driving Table DAT (omit table_path → a small example table; rows sets how many demo rows), creates the replicator under parent_path, points its driving-table and master parameters at them, sets the replication method to 'by table', and optionally drops an onReplicate callback DAT stub for per-clone setup. The Replicator's parameter names vary by TD build, so each is set probe-first and the report includes which parameter took plus the live parameter list. Then it pulses a re-replicate so the clones appear. Re-replicating is destructive to previously generated clones, which the replicator deletes and re-creates on cook.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
parent_pathNoCOMP to build the replicator inside./project1
nameNoName for the Replicator COMP.replicator1
template_pathNoExisting COMP to clone per row. Omit → create a minimal template COMP (a container with a Text).
table_pathNoTable DAT whose rows drive the clones. Omit → create a small example Table DAT.
rowsNoWhen creating an example table, how many example rows (0 = a 3-row demo).
callback_stubNoGenerate an onReplicate callback DAT stub (per-clone setup hook).
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses several behaviors beyond annotations: parameter name probing, destructive re-replication, callback stub creation. Annotations say destructiveHint false, but description says re-replicating is destructive to clones—this is about the replicator's internal behavior, not the tool's effect, so no contradiction. Could mention error handling or prerequisites.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with main purpose, but middle section on parameter probing and re-replication is slightly verbose. Efficient overall, but could trim details like 'each is set probe-first' without losing clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, but description does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., path to created replicator). Mentions a report within the replicator, not the tool's output. Covers inputs well but lacks output description and error behavior, leaving gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains behavior when template_path or table_path are omitted, demo rows for `rows` parameter, and callback stub generation. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3; description adds value, thus 4.

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?

Clearly states the tool wires a Replicator COMP that clones a template per row of a Table DAT, using specific verb 'Wire' and resource 'Replicator COMP'. Distinguishes from siblings by naming the replicator mechanism and mentioning 'TouchDesigner's idiomatic N copies from data'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides usage context with examples like menus, scoreboards, per-track decks, and instanced panels, implying when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives among the many 'create_' siblings, missing some guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Pantani/tdmcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server