Skip to main content
Glama
vedant1317

td-mcp

by vedant1317
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation: status checks connection, build creates networks, create makes single ops, set modifies params, connect wires, get inspects, list enumerates children, delete removes, find_channels/read_chop handle CHOP data, ensure_cook forces cooking, screenshot captures images, save/load handle files, errors finds problems, and exec runs arbitrary Python. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent `td_verb` or `td_noun` pattern, with verbs like create, set, connect, get, list, delete, find, read, save, load, and exec. The two noun-like names (td_status, td_errors) are intuitive and don't break the overall naming scheme.

    Tool Count4/5

    16 tools is comprehensive but not excessive for a TouchDesigner MCP server that needs to support network building, parameter manipulation, inspection, debugging, file I/O, and execution. It's one tool over the typical '5-15' range but still well-scoped for the diversity of operations.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the core lifecycle: create, delete, connect, set params, save/load, and inspect. It also includes important extras like channel finding, error reporting, screenshots, and a Python escape hatch. Minor gaps exist (no explicit disconnect/rename/move operations), but td_exec can cover these, so agents have workarounds.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at glob pattern support for channels, but says nothing about whether the CHOP is evaluated/cooked, whether values are real-time, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a read operation on a node-based system.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is very short with no redundant words, but it is so terse that it lacks a subject-verb structure, making it more a label than an instruction. It is not as concise-with-meaning as it should be.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the presence of an output schema, the minimum needed from the description is context on when to use this tool and what the path refers to. Neither is provided. The description is too sparse for an agent to confidently select this tool over siblings.

    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 compensate. It adds the 'glob filter' note, which applies to the channels parameter, but it does not explain the crucial 'path' parameter or how patterns interact with channel names. This leaves most parameter meaning undefined.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Current channel values of a CHOP (glob filter)' identifies the resource (a CHOP) and suggests a read operation, but uses a noun phrase instead of an explicit verb like 'read' or 'get'. It distinguishes from td_find_channels by focusing on values rather than names, but is vague about what 'current' means in an execution context.

    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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of siblings like td_get, td_list, or td_find_channels, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without addressing reversibility, dependencies, error conditions, or expected outcomes—critical gaps for a destructive operation.

    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 a single, short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient and clean in structure, though its brevity borders on under-specification—a trade-off that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the destructive nature and the lack of annotations, the tool needs more contextual explanation about its behavior, prerequisites, and post-conditions. The presence of an output schema may indicate return values, but it does not compensate for the missing operational context.

    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?

    The schema defines a single 'path' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not explain what the path refers to or any format expectations. With 0% schema description coverage and no descriptive support, the agent must infer the parameter's meaning.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an operator'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like td_create and td_set by the nature of the action, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

    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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, any prerequisites, or potential side effects. The description is purely declarative and offers no contextual placement among the sibling tools.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but omits critical details such as return format, recursion behavior, how depth is interpreted, and what constitutes an 'erroring op'. The minimal wording leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

    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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but the brevity borders on under-specification. It earns high marks for conciseness but not for structure.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations. It lacks any behavioral details, edge-case handling, or parameter explanations. It is a minimal viable description but leaves substantial gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

    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 compensate for parameter meaning. It hints that 'path' corresponds to the 'parent' parameter, but the 'depth' parameter is completely unexplained. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's field names and defaults.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'All erroring ops under a path' clearly indicates the tool returns erroring operations under a given path. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'. It is not a tautology and conveys the core function.

    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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, preferred contexts, or exclusions. The description is purely a statement of what it does, with no usage scenarios.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Wire from_path output -> to_path input' and does not disclose side effects such as whether existing connections are replaced, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on invalid paths.

    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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using a clear arrow notation to convey the connection direction. It is a single sentence with no wasted words, though its brevity comes at the cost of failing to explain optional parameters.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, this description is too sparse. It omits the meaning of from_out and to_in and provides no usage context beyond the core wiring action. While an output schema exists, it does not help clarify input semantics.

    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?

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate. It clarifies that from_path is an output and to_path is an input, but it leaves the optional parameters from_out and to_in completely unexplained. An agent cannot infer what these integer indices represent.

    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 uses the specific verb 'Wire' and specifies the direction 'from_path output -> to_path input.' This distinguishes td_connect from sibling tools like td_set or td_create, which involve different operations.

    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?

    The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states the operation without explaining prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools like td_build or td_set would be more appropriate.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation creates an operator and applies optional parameters atomically, but it does not mention permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, or side effects beyond creation. 'Atomic' adds some value, but significant behavioral details are missing.

    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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and a key nuance (atomicity). Every word earns its place with no filler.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Despite having an output schema, the tool has six parameters and zero annotations. The description is too sparse to guide correct invocation; it does not explain the required 'type', the meaning of 'parent', or the structure of 'params'. This is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'optional params' but does not explain any of the six parameters (type, x, y, name, params, parent). The agent has no information about what each parameter means or how they relate to the operation.

    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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('one operator'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like td_set and td_delete. It also adds the scope 'one' and the atomic behavior, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as td_set for modifying or td_delete for removing. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, whether it replaces existing nodes, or triggers cooking. This leaves the agent without critical context about what 'load' actually does.

    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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action and object.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Even with an output schema, the description lacks essential context about the loading operation, such as error handling, side effects, and how the parent parameter influences the load. Since there are no annotations, this sparse description leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

    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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at 'project' which maps to the parent parameter. It does not explain the 'file' path format or clarify the meaning of 'parent' beyond the schema's default. The description adds minimal value over the schema itself.

    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 uses a specific verb 'Load' and resource '.tox component', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like td_save or td_list by focusing on loading a .tox component into the project.

    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?

    The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like file existence or parent validity. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'List child ops' and does not mention read-only nature, return format, depth behavior, or any side effects. The schema defaults hint at behavior but are not described.

    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 a single, densely packed sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and the family scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. It omits explanation of how 'depth', 'limit', 'parent', and 'pattern' affect the results, leaving the agent to infer from defaults or schema names. This is inadequate for complete understanding.

    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 compensate. It clarifies the 'family' parameter by listing valid values (TOP/CHOP/DAT/SOP/COMP), but does not explain 'depth', 'limit', 'parent', or 'pattern'. This partial compensation is insufficient for a tool with five parameters.

    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 action ('List child ops') and specifies the resource scope (family: TOP/CHOP/DAT/SOP/COMP). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like td_read_chop or td_find_channels, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies usage through its clear verb 'List' and the family parameter, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like td_get or td_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of transparency. It mentions the optional new path, but does not disclose potential overwriting behavior, behavior when no project is loaded, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a save operation that could modify or replace existing files.

    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 a single, focused sentence. It front-loads the core action and includes the key optionality. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

    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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the primary functionality well. It could mention overwriting implications, but overall it is reasonably complete for a save operation.

    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?

    The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'optionally to a new path' adds meaning to the 'file' parameter, indicating it is a destination path and that omitting it likely saves to the original location. However, it stops short of specifying path format or behavior when the parameter is null.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('Save the .toe project') and the optional path parameter, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the action is unambiguous enough for a save operation.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies usage (when you want to save a project), but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like td_create or td_build, nor any prerequisites or conditions. It is neither misleading nor detailed enough to earn a 4.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses accepted value forms and that unknown names return close-matches, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or connection requirements.

    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 short, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: purpose, accepted value syntax, and error behavior. No filler or repetition.

    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?

    The description gives core semantics and error behavior, but with no annotations and a nested params object, it lacks details about what 'path' references, return values, or success/failure behavior. An output schema exists but is not described.

    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?

    The input schema only provides names (path, params) with no descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining parameter value forms and unknown-name handling, but it does not explain the 'path' parameter or the structure of the params object.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description uses the specific verb 'Set' with the resource 'parameters', clearly indicating a write operation. It distinguishes from sibling get/list tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies usage when assigning parameter values and provides concrete value syntax ('5, 'str', {'expr':'absTime.seconds'}, 'PULSE''). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or list prerequisites.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, or performance implications of installing the force-cook. The tool clearly mutates node state, but the description only states the action and purpose without explaining the consequences.

    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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains zero unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and well-structured for the tool's simplicity.

    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?

    The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the action and purpose, but lacks information about side effects or prerequisites. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

    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?

    The schema has a single 'path' parameter with no description. The description adds that the tool operates 'on a node', implying that 'path' refers to a node path. This provides essential meaning but does not specify format, constraints, or examples.

    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 installs a per-frame force-cook on a node, with the specific purpose of fixing GLSL/feedback freeze. It uses a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('node'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like td_get or td_set.

    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 parenthetical '(fixes GLSL/feedback freeze)' provides a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return type (chop paths + channel names) but omits details like pattern semantics, case sensitivity, and the parent scoping behavior. There is no contradiction.

    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?

    A single well-structured sentence front-loads the verb and resource, includes a helpful example, and states the return value. Every word earns its place.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits the parent scoping parameter and limit, which are relevant for effective use. The output schema partially compensates for return values, but the overall parameter semantics remain under-specified.

    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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description only explains pattern via example and makes no mention of limit or parent parameters, leaving users to guess their meaning and defaults.

    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 explicitly states the tool finds CHOP channels by glob across the project, with a concrete example pattern. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like td_list or td_get, which have different purposes.

    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 implies when to use the tool: when searching for channels by glob pattern. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the example and phrasing convey the intended scenario clearly.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side-effect information. It implies a non-mutating status check but does not explicitly state it is read-only, what it returns, or behavior on failure. This is a significant gap for a status tool.

    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 a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the tool's identity and then a directive. Every word earns its place.

    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 zero-parameter design and presence of an output schema, the description adequately sets context for use ('call first'). It could be slightly more explicit about what it returns, but the output schema presumably covers that. The sibling context is partly addressed by the 'first' instruction.

    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, and the schema is empty. The description doesn't need to clarify parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. It provides no misleading information.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly identifies the tool as a status checker for the TD bridge, with an explicit instruction to call it first. It distinguishes itself from siblings like td_connect by positioning itself as the initial verification step. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'check' or 'verify', making it slightly less direct.

    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 instruction 'Call first' provides clear timing for usage, indicating this should precede other TD operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'first' directive effectively establishes its role as a prerequisite.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default output directory and the side effect of saving a file. However, it omits details like whether the file is overwritten, how the filename is generated, or any requirements (e.g., the TOP must exist). This is adequate for a simple save operation but not rich.

    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 a single, compact sentence that leads with the action and includes the essential detail about the default location. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

    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?

    The tool is simple, and the output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks critical context about the required top_path parameter and any prerequites. It gives purpose and a default, but a user might not know what to pass for top_path beyond the schema.

    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 compensate. It only hints at the 'file' parameter via 'default under td-mcp/shots', implying this can be overridden, but it completely ignores the required 'top_path' parameter. The description adds some meaning about the default output path but fails to explain the primary argument.

    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 specific action ('Save a TOP's image to PNG'), the resource (a TOP), and the output format (PNG). It also mentions the default save location, distinguishing this from sibling tools like td_save which likely saves node configurations rather than visual snapshots.

    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 phrase 'so the client can view it' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate—when a visual representation of a TOP is needed. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or name alternatives, but the purpose is concrete enough to guide usage.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that arbitrary Python runs with certain variables in scope and that stdout is returned, but it does not mention possible side effects, persistent state changes, or error behavior.

    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?

    A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It communicates the purpose, execution context, and return value efficiently.

    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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return. However, as an arbitrary code execution escape hatch with no annotations, it lacks warnings about destructive capabilities or failure modes, leaving some contextual gaps.

    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 schema has one 'code' string with no description, but the tool description compensates by explaining that the code is Python executed inside TD with specific bindings in scope. This gives the parameter clear semantic meaning beyond its name.

    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 action: running Python code inside TD. It also names the execution scope (op, project, ParMode, absTime) and the 'escape hatch' label distinguishes it from the other TD-specific tools.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The 'escape hatch' wording implies it is a fallback for actions not covered by sibling tools, but it does not explicitly say when to use it or when to prefer a dedicated tool. There is no named alternative or exclusion criteria.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that TouchDesigner may auto-rename operators, which affects the returned paths. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing ops, permission requirements, or failure modes when ops already exist.

    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 dense sentences that convey purpose, input format, and output behavior with no filler. The key point is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it easy to scan.

    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?

    The description gives essential syntax for ops and wires but leaves gaps: it doesn't enumerate possible op types, explain how parent is used, or clarify how wires reference ops outside the call. The output schema likely covers return values, so the path mention is a bonus, but some invocation details remain ambiguous.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the ops array structure (type, name, params, x, y) and the wires array format (from, to, optional to_in), which is critical. It doesn't explain 'parent' but that parameter is a straightforward string path.

    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 that the tool builds a whole network in a single call, with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('network'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like td_create and td_connect by combining op creation and wiring in one batch operation.

    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 context: use this when you want to build an entire network at once. The phrase 'in ONE call' implies it is intended for batch creation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear enough for an agent to determine when to use it.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior by stating 'Inspect' (implying read-only) and explicitly notes 'NON-DEFAULT params only', which is a non-obvious filtering behavior. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is clear from the verb.

    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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose then lists specifics. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

    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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description effectively covers the essential aspects of what is inspected. 'NON-DEFAULT params only' adds important context. It could mention output handling, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

    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 schema has only one parameter 'path' with no description. The description's 'Inspect an op' implies that 'path' refers to the operator path, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify path format or examples, so it is not perfect.

    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 action ('Inspect an op') and enumerates what it returns (type, errors, NON-DEFAULT params only, wiring, res/chans). This specific verb+resource and the listed aspects distinguish it from siblings like td_status or 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 Guidelines4/5

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

    The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (inspecting an op's details) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are stated, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over other siblings.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

touchDesigner-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

touchDesigner-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/vedant1317/touchDesigner-MCP'

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