Skip to main content
Glama

Create body reactive

create_body_reactive

Build body-reactive visuals from full-body pose tracking. Select from points, glow, or trails styles, and use synthetic pose for instant preview or connect real pose sources.

Instructions

Build a body-reactive visual driven by full-body pose tracking: glowing marks that follow the 33 landmarks (head, hands, elbows, hips, knees, feet), rendered to a Null TOP. Creates a new baseCOMP under parent_path holding the pose source, a Geometry COMP (dots copied onto the landmark point cloud), a Camera, a Render TOP, and per-style post-processing. Styles: 'points' (crisp dots), 'glow' (bloomed dots), 'trails' (motion smears that follow the body). Source defaults to a SYNTHETIC animated pose so it builds and previews instantly with no camera and no plugin; switch to 'mediapipe' (the free torinmb plugin), 'osc', or an existing pose CHOP (e.g. from create_pose_tracking) for the real performer. The visual counterpart of create_audio_reactive, for the body instead of sound. Returns a summary plus a JSON block with the container path, created node paths, the output path, exposed controls, any node errors, warnings, and an inline preview image.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNoWhere the 33-landmark pose stream comes from. 'synthetic' (default) = a self-contained animated human pose that needs NO camera and NO plugin — use it to build and preview the look instantly. 'mediapipe' = the live CHOP from the free torinmb/mediapipe-touchdesigner plugin (point mediapipe_chop_path at its pose landmarks CHOP). 'osc' = landmarks arriving over OSC (osc_port). 'existing_chop' = a pose CHOP you already built (e.g. the output of create_pose_tracking).synthetic
mediapipe_chop_pathNoPath to the MediaPipe plugin's pose-landmarks CHOP (source='mediapipe'). The plugin emits 33 samples with tx/ty/tz channels.
osc_portNoUDP port the OSC In CHOP listens on (source='osc').
existing_chop_pathNoPath of an existing pose CHOP — 33 samples, tx/ty/tz channels (source='existing_chop').
visual_styleNoLook of the body-reactive visual: 'points' = crisp dots at each landmark; 'glow' = dots with a bloom halo; 'trails' = dots that smear into motion trails as the body moves.glow
colorNoDot colour as hex ('#rrggbb'). Drives the Constant MAT; default is hot magenta.#ff40cc
dot_sizeNoRadius of each landmark dot (world units). Exposed as a live knob.
glow_amountNoBloom blur size for visual_style='glow' (Blur TOP size). Exposed as a live knob.
trail_decayNoHow much of the previous frame survives for visual_style='trails' (feedback opacity). Higher = longer trails. Exposed as a live knob.
expose_controlsNoWhen true (default), expose live DotSize (+ style-specific Glow/TrailDecay) knobs and a Color swatch.
parent_pathNoParent network where the body-reactive container is created (default '/project1')./project1
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description adds context by describing the creation process, output format (summary + JSON with paths and preview), and that it uses synthetic pose by default. No contradictions.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and details. It is informative but could benefit from structured bullets for sources and styles. No wasted sentences.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 11 parameters, multiple sources, and styles, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, components, source options, styles, output format, and even mentions the sibling tool. It is fully sufficient for an AI agent.

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?

Parameter coverage is 100% in the input schema, so the description adds limited new information about parameters. It groups them in context but does not significantly enhance agent understanding beyond the schema.

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 it builds a body-reactive visual using full-body pose tracking, creating a baseCOMP with specific components. It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_audio_reactive as its visual counterpart for the body.

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?

It explains when to use synthetic vs. real sources and mentions it is the visual counterpart of create_audio_reactive. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other similar creation tools like create_pose_reactive.

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/Pantani/tdmcp'

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