tdmcp

Reload bridge

reload_bridge

Reload modified bridge Python modules in a running TouchDesigner session to apply code changes without reopening the project, and return the list of reloaded modules.

Instructions

Hot-reload the bridge's Python inside the running TouchDesigner, so edits to the td/ modules take effect without reopening the project. Reimports every loaded mcp./utils. module in place and returns the list reloaded. Use after editing bridge code.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "reload_bridge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.13.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it performs an in-place reimport, returns the reloaded list, and avoids reopening the project. It discloses that it mutates the running environment, which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of side effects.

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 main purpose, and each sentence adds value (action, mechanism, return value, usage). There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens, why, and what the agent will receive. It could mention potential risks of reimporting modules (e.g., state reset), but that is beyond the necessary scope given the annotations indicate non-destructive behavior. Overall, it is well-rounded.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter info needed, and the baseline for no-param tools is 4. It appropriately focuses on the tool's action and return value.

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 a specific verb ('hot-reload') and resource ('bridge's Python inside the running TouchDesigner'), explaining what it does and how it achieves it (reimports mcp.*/utils.* modules). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_bridge_logs by focusing on code reload rather than inspection.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after editing bridge code.' This gives clear context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the instruction is sufficient for a typical dev workflow.

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

Deploy Server