Skip to main content
Glama

Create Replicator (clone a template per data row)

create_replicator

Creates a TouchDesigner Replicator COMP that clones a template per row of a Table DAT, sets replication by table, and re-replicates to generate clones. Accepts or creates template and table, with optional callback stub.

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
nameNoName for the Replicator COMP.replicator1
rowsNoWhen creating an example table, how many example rows (0 = a 3-row demo).
table_pathNoTable DAT whose rows drive the clones. Omit → create a small example Table DAT.
parent_pathNoCOMP to build the replicator inside./project1
callback_stubNoGenerate an onReplicate callback DAT stub (per-clone setup hook).
template_pathNoExisting COMP to clone per row. Omit → create a minimal template COMP (a container with a Text).
Behavior1/5

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

The description explicitly states that 'Re-replicating is destructive to previously generated clones' and that 'the replicator deletes and re-creates on cook', yet the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, forcing a score of 1 per the rubric despite the description's otherwise rich behavioral detail.

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 every sentence contributes meaningful behavioral or contextual information (fallback creation, parameter probing, destructiveness). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains structured, though slightly verbose.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers creation fallbacks, callback stubs, parameter-version workarounds, and destructive re-replication. It partially explains the report contents ('which parameter took plus the live parameter list') but does not fully specify the return structure, preventing a perfect score.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter mentions (e.g., 'omit template_path → a minimal container with a Text') largely duplicate the schema descriptions without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the structured properties already provide.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Wire a Replicator COMP that clones a template COMP once per row of a Table DAT'. It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the idiomatic 'N copies from data' mechanism and listing concrete use cases like menus and scoreboards.

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?

The description provides clear usage context through examples ('menus, scoreboards, per-track decks, instanced panels') and explains when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it slightly misses the 'exclusions' portion of a perfect score.

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/lucasmaher-hash/touch-designer-mcp'

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