Skip to main content
Glama

td_delete_node

Destructive

Delete a node in TouchDesigner by providing its absolute path (e.g., '/project1/noise1').

Instructions

Delete a node by its absolute path.

v1.4.6 Bug A PoC: explicit-args signature instead of the old params: DeleteNodeInput wrapper. FastMCP wraps params: Model signatures under a params: {"$ref": ...} property that MCP clients collapse to an opaque {}. Explicit args produce a flat schema the client can render directly — callers see path as a required string with description and min_length instead of having to guess. The Annotated[str, Field(...)] pattern carries the same validation the old Pydantic model had.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path of the node to delete (e.g. '/project1/noise1')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds only the basic operation, no detail on cascading effects, reversibility, or permissions. The lengthy implementation trivia detracts from behavioral clarity.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is bloated with irrelevant implementation history (v1.4.6 Bug A PoC, FastMCP wrapping) that wastes tokens and confuses. A single sentence would suffice.

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?

For a simple delete tool, the description provides minimal context beyond the schema. Output schema exists but no explanation of return values or side effects. Misses opportunity to note what happens to children or if deletion is permanent.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds no further insight beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool deletes a node by absolute path. The name reinforces this. Despite implementation noise, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like td_copy_node or td_rename_node. No context on prerequisites, restrictions, or when deletion should be avoided.

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/dreamrec/TDPilot'

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