tdmcp-bridge-endpoint — the bridge vertical slice
SkillMonitoring & opsBuild a tdmcp TouchDesigner-bridge vertical slice the house way — promote an op from /api/exec to a first-class REST endpoint (e.g. POST /api/connect, GET /api/logs, node_detail flags), add its typed method in src/td-client/touchDesignerClient.ts, its Zod envelope in src/td-client/validators.ts, rewire the tool(s) to prefer the endpoint with an exec fallback, and write py_compile + td/tests unittest + offline msw client tests. Use when adding/changing a bridge REST endpoint, editing td/, extending node_detail/get_bridge_logs, promoting connect/disconnect/param-modes/DAT-text off exec, or doing any exec→REST work — especially the td-depth bridge-robustness backlog. Honors probe-live discipline when TouchDesigner is offline.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.
Then ask your AI: use the tdmcp-bridge-endpoint — the bridge vertical slice skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by pantani/tdmcp in .agents/skills/tdmcp-bridge-endpoint/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
A bridge feature is correct only when four layers agree on one shape: the Python route, the TS client method, the Zod validator, and the tool that consumes it. This skill is that contract. Build the slice top-to-bottom, keep an exec fallback so it ships safely before every bridge in the wild updates, and prove it all offline.
Run bridge slices one at a time — they share
touchDesignerClient.ts,validators.ts, and the bridge route registry. Two in parallel is merge hell.
Why exec→REST at all
The bridge runs arbitrary Python on /api/exec. A security-conscious VJ runs
TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=0 on a venue network — and ~69 tools silently die.
Promoting a well-defined op (connect, param-mode read/write, DAT text, node
flags, logs) to its own REST route makes it survive that hardened config. You are
promoting proven logic, not inventing it — start from the Python the tool
already sends through /api/exec.
The slice, in order
1. Bridge (Python, td/)
- Add a handler module (or extend the right existing one) and register the
route. Find how routes are registered (the request dispatcher in
td/) and follow that exact pattern — don't invent a second mechanism. - Keep every TD-global (
op,app,project,ui) inside the handler function so the module imports cleanly outside TD (the tests rely on this). - Return a JSON report with a stable shape: a top-level
ok/error and the data. Mirror the envelope the existing endpoints return soparsePythonReport/the validators stay uniform. - Honor
TDMCP_BRIDGE_TOKEN(bearer auth) and theALLOW_EXECgate exactly as sibling routes do — a new route must not become an auth bypass. python3 -m py_compile td/**/<changed>.pyon every changed file.
2. Client method (src/td-client/touchDesignerClient.ts)
- Add one typed method that calls the new route (GET/POST/PATCH/PUT as fits).
- Map failures to the existing typed errors:
TdApiError(4xx/5xx with a body),TdConnectionError(refused/DNS),TdTimeoutError. Never let a raw fetch error escape. - Exec fallback: if the endpoint returns 404 (older bridge without the route),
fall back to the previous
/api/execPython path. This is what lets the promotion ship before the bridge is reinstalled everywhere. Make the fallback a private helper so the test can force both paths.
3. Validator (src/td-client/validators.ts)
- Add a Zod schema for the response envelope and
.parse()it in the client — never hand a raw wire object upward. Reuse the shared envelope helpers already in the file.
4. Rewire the tool(s)
- Point
connect_nodes/disconnect_nodes/read_parameter_modes/set_parameter_expression/edit_dat_content/set_dat_content/get_bridge_logs/ thenode_detailconsumers at the new method. Preserve current behavior and output exactly — this is a transport swap, not a redesign. Keep fail-forward: validate inputs with Zod, turn TD failures into friendlyisErrorviaerrorResult/friendlyTdError; never throw out of a handler.
Probe-live discipline (when TD is offline)
Attribute names that vary by TD build are the trap: connector semantics for
connect/disconnect, ParMode/.expr/.mode names for param-modes, Error DAT
column layout for logs, optype enumeration for createable. The backlog flags these
probe-live.
- TD reachable (
get_td_infook): probe the real names in a scratch network first (create a couple of ops, read the actual attrs), then lock the schema. - TD offline: implement against the best-known names from the knowledge base
(
tdmcp://operators/...,tdmcp://classes/...) and TD's documented Python API; write the offline tests; and flag every probe-dependent assumptionUNVERIFIED-livein your report (with the source you used). Do not claim a live pass you could not observe. The campaign-lead holdsUNVERIFIED-liveitems for a live pass before the final release.
Tests (offline — no TD)
- Bridge unittest
td/tests/test_<name>.py: import the handler, call it with a fakedop()/payload, assert the report shape and the error branch. At minimumpy_compile. Runpython3 -m unittest discover -s td/tests. - Client msw test
tests/unit/*: stub the route; assert (a) success → validated shape, (b) 4xx/5xx → correctTdErrorsubclass, (c) timeout →TdTimeoutError, (d) 404 → exec-fallback path returns the same shape. Mirror the closest existing client test.
Gates (all green before reporting)
npm run typecheck · npm run build · ./node_modules/.bin/biome check . (NOT
npm run lint) · npm test · npm run test:bridge. Fix forward; never disable a
gate or use --no-verify.
Report back
Endpoint(s) added + method + validator; tool(s) rewired; the exec-fallback
behavior; every UNVERIFIED-live assumption with its source; gate results; and the
ledger fields to set (files[], status). On a re-run, treat feedback as a diff —
don't rewrite a green slice.
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 41
- Forks
- 9
- Last commit
- Aug 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
tdmcp-bridge-endpoint- Source
- github.com/pantani/tdmcp