Skip to main content
Glama

td_health

Find silent failures in TouchDesigner projects: uncooked operators, disabled outputs, shader compile errors, callback tracebacks, and slow cooks. Run after building to catch what nothing reports.

Instructions

Find what is quietly broken — the failures nothing reports.

Run this after building anything, and whenever a composition "looks fine but does nothing". td_errors only covers what TouchDesigner calls an error; this additionally catches:

  • operators that never cook, because a branch nothing displays or records is never pulled and therefore is not running at all

  • output operators switched off (audio device, movie recorder, MIDI, OSC) which produce nothing and report nothing

  • GLSL operators whose shader failed to compile, quoting the compiler's own line: TouchDesigner only warns that an Info DAT would show the details

  • tracebacks raised inside callbacks and extensions (Execute DAT, Replicator, component callbacks), which are kept apart from the error list. A Script operator's onCook raising during a cook Python asked for is not covered — that traceback goes back to the caller instead

  • operators costing more than half a frame to cook, and the resulting frame rate collapse. A cook time is named by the frame it was measured on, so one left over from a cook long before this check is set apart as stale rather than blamed for the current frame rate

  • bypassed operators, and the current licence

  • feedback loops (Feedback TOP, and the CHOP and POP that hold state between frames), which cook(force=True) does not advance: frames made by forced cooks carry a stale trail

  • bypassed gain operators (Level, Math, HSV Adjust), which pass their input through at full strength instead of switching the layer off

  • Level TOPs that can output negative floats (float format, no clamp, and contrast above 1, inlow above 0 or outlow below 0 — black level only cuts to 0), and whether an Add below them takes those values away from what it adds to

  • reads of the application clock (absTime) or an unseeded random generator, which keep a render from reproducing between runs

interval is the gap between the two samples, in seconds, and is capped: this process sleeps through it and answers nothing else meanwhile.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo/project1
intervalNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses substantial behavior: two-sample interval, sleep with cap, stale cook time handling, forced-cook caveats, and specific detection semantics. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but the diagnostic framing strongly implies it.

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 long but well-structured with a clear opening and bulleted list of failure modes. Nearly every sentence adds concrete value; the density is justified by the tool's breadth, though it could be slightly tighter.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers most relevant context: what it checks, when to run it, and the interval behavior. The output schema exists, so return details need not be described. The main gap is the undocumented `path` parameter, which prevents full completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It explains `interval` as the gap between two samples in seconds with a cap, but never defines `path`. With two parameters and one entirely undocumented, the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a clear purpose: finding failures that nothing reports, and explicitly contrasts with td_errors. The list of specific failure categories makes the tool's scope concrete and distinguishable from the sibling td_errors.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: run after building anything and whenever a composition looks fine but does nothing. It also names the alternative td_errors and explains the division of labor, so an agent can choose correctly.

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