Skip to main content
Glama

Rebuild network from a spec

rebuild_network
Destructive

Reconstruct a node network inside a COMP from a JSON spec, creating nodes, applying parameters, and wiring inputs in one pass. Handles errors with warnings for partial recovery.

Instructions

Reconstruct a live network inside a COMP from a serialize_network spec — the REBUILD half of a git-diffable round-trip. Takes a JSON spec of nodes (name, operator type, parameters as constants/expressions/binds, inbound wires by name, optional x/y) and, in one pass, creates every node, applies its parameters and expressions, then wires inputs by resolving each from reference to the freshly created node. Fail-forward: an unknown operator type, missing parameter, or unresolved wire becomes a warning and the rest still build, so a partial reconstruction still returns useful results. Set clear_existing to delete the parent's current children first (destructive). Set auto_layout to auto-position every node by dependency (longest-path columns, left→right) from the spec's inputs graph, overriding any manual x/y. Returns the created node names, wire count, parameters set, and any warnings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specYesA serialize_network spec to reconstruct.
auto_layoutNoAuto-position every node by dependency (longest-path columns, left→right) from the spec's `inputs` graph, overriding any per-node x/y. False (default) honors manual x/y only.
parent_pathYesCOMP to rebuild the network inside.
clear_existingNoDelete existing children of parent_path first (destructive).
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate write, open-world, and destructive (when set). The description adds substantial behavioral context: one-pass creation, fail-forward error handling, wiring resolution, and the specific effects of clear_existing and auto_layout. No contradictions.

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?

The description is well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then explains the spec, fail-forward behavior, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though it is somewhat lengthy. It is front-loaded and clear.

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?

Given the complexity of nested objects and no output schema, the description fully explains return values (node names, wire count, parameters set, warnings) and the fail-forward behavior. It covers parameters, error handling, and edge cases, making it complete for an agent.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the overall process (one-pass, fail-forward) and how parameters like auto_layout override manual positions. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states it reconstructs a live network from a serialize_network spec, using the specific verb 'Reconstruct' and resource 'live network inside a COMP'. It positions itself as the REBUILD half of a git-diffable round-trip, differentiating from the sibling serialize_network.

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 description implies usage via context (rebuilding from a spec) and explains key behaviors like fail-forward and parameter effects, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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