Skip to main content
Glama

Build RayTK expression graph

raytk_expr_graph_builder

Build an editable RayTK ROP expression graph from a preset or explicit nodes/edges, wire typed connectors, auto-layout, and expose the output via out1.

Instructions

Build an editable RayTK ROP expression graph from a preset or explicit nodes/edges: copy RayTK masters live via pathsByOpType/category search, wire typed connectors, apply simple parameter values, lay out copied nodes deterministically, and expose the selected output through out1. Complements create_raytk_scene (minimal scene) and create_raytk_op (single ROP). Requires RayTK staged and loaded; offline tests validate payload/registration only, while live render/cook proof remains explicit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName for the generated graph container.raytk_expr_graph
edgesNoCustom graph edges. Preset edges are used when nodes are omitted.
nodesNoCustom RayTK ROP graph nodes. Leave empty to use the selected preset.
presetNoStarter graph to build when nodes are omitted. Use custom with explicit nodes/edges.sphere_union_box
add_lightNoAppend pointLight and wire it into renderer input 2 when a renderer exists.
add_cameraNoAppend lookAtCamera and wire it into renderer input 1 when a renderer exists.
parent_pathNoParent COMP path to build inside./project1
add_materialNoAppend basicMat between the SDF/combine tail and renderer when absent.
add_rendererNoAppend raymarchRender3D when the graph has no output ROP.
library_pathNoOptional explicit path to the loaded RayTK library COMP. Omit to probe pathsByOpType and known namespaces live.
output_node_idNoNode id to expose through out1. Defaults to the renderer added or inferred by the tool.
capture_preview_imageNoCapture an inline preview from out1. RayTK shader compile may still be asynchronous.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining that it copies RayTK masters live, lays out nodes deterministically, and explicitly notes that 'offline tests validate payload/registration only, while live render/cook proof remains explicit.' This discloses limitations and behavioral nuances without contradicting the 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes meaningful information: what it does, how it relates to siblings, and key prerequisites/limitations. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (12 parameters, no output schema) and detailed schema, the description covers the overall workflow, prerequisites, and limitations. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the schema handles parameter details. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope and constraints, though it could mention potential side effects if any.

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 description adds conceptual context for parameters (e.g., 'preset or explicit nodes/edges', 'simple parameter values', 'expose the selected output through out1') but does not provide detailed syntax or additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It meets the baseline but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb and resource: 'Build an editable RayTK ROP expression graph'. It lists specific capabilities (copy masters, wire connectors, apply parameters, deterministic layout, expose output) and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming create_raytk_scene and create_raytk_op as complements. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 usage context by explicitly naming sibling tools ('Complements create_raytk_scene (minimal scene) and create_raytk_op (single ROP)') and states a prerequisite ('Requires RayTK staged and loaded'). It implies when to use this tool (for a full editable graph vs minimal or single-op) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or give strict exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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