Skip to main content
Glama

List TouchDesigner nodes

get_td_nodes
Read-only

List direct child nodes of a TouchDesigner COMP, with a compact summary (count, types, sample paths) by default. Filter by name pattern or get the full path list when needed.

Instructions

Read-only: list the DIRECT child nodes of one COMP. Defaults to a compact summary (count + type breakdown + sample paths); pass detail_level:"full" or path_only:true for the complete list, and pattern to filter by name. Returns {count, by_type/sample or paths/nodes}. Use this to browse one level; use find_td_nodes to search recursively and by operator type, or get_td_topology when you also need the connections between nodes. Token economy: keep the default compact summary and scope with pattern; only request the full list when you truly need every path, and avoid re-listing a path you already inspected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoCap the number of nodes returned.
patternNoCase-insensitive filter on node name/path. Supports '*' wildcards (e.g. 'text*', '*noise*').
path_onlyNoReturn only the list of node paths, dropping type/name.
parent_pathNoParent COMP whose direct children should be listed./project1
detail_levelNo'summary' (default) returns a count, a type breakdown and the first few paths; 'full' returns every node. Use 'full' (or path_only) when you need the complete list.summary

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNoSummary mode: note that the list was sampled, with how to get all of it.
countYesNumber of children matched (before any limit truncation).
nodesNoFull mode: every matched node as {path, name, type}.
pathsNopath_only mode: the matched node paths and nothing else.
sampleNoSummary mode: paths of the first few matched nodes.
by_typeNoSummary mode: count of matched nodes per operator type.
truncatedYesTrue if `limit` cut the list short of the full match count.
parent_pathYesThe parent COMP whose children were listed.
detail_levelYesWhich detail level produced this result, echoing the request.
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and then discloses behavior that annotations do not capture: default summary mode, how to get the full list, the return shape ({count, by_type/sample or paths/nodes}), and the fact that it only lists direct children. It also adds a token-economy caution, which is a behavioral trade-off not implied by annotations.

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?

The description is a bit longer than two sentences, but every clause is informative: purpose, default behavior, parameter effects, return shape, sibling comparisons, and token advice. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and read-only flag, and the structure flows logically.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return shape, alternatives, and even token economy. It anticipates the main concerns a user would have (scope, full vs summary, which sibling to use) and thus feels complete for its complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description mentions `detail_level:"full"`, `path_only:true`, and `pattern`, but these are already described in the schema. It does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so no upgrade is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'list the DIRECT child nodes of one COMP.' It then explicitly contrasts with sibling tools: 'use find_td_nodes to search recursively and by operator type, or get_td_topology when you also need the connections between nodes.' This makes the tool's niche unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description includes explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to browse one level' and names concrete alternatives with their distinguishing features (recursive search, topology). It also adds practical usage advice about the default compact summary, using `pattern` to scope, and avoiding redundant full listings, which goes beyond generic instructions.

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