Pause execution until an incoming OSC message matches a specified address or regex pattern, with configurable timeout. Coordinates lighting console actions with external OSC signals.
Wait for an incoming OSC address pattern (timeout in ms)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Exact OSC address or regex pattern | |
| useRegex | No | ||
| timeoutMs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that the tool waits for a message and respects a timeout, which is meaningful behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether the wait is blocking/cancellable, or whether receipt is acknowledged or just observed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the parenthetical efficiently conveys the key timeout parameter. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low schema coverage and absence of an output schema, the description is too lean to fully plan a call. It omits the meaning of useRegex, the timeout behavior on expiry, the return/result semantics, and any relationship to sibling OSC tools. An agent can guess the purpose but not the complete invocation contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that timeoutMs is in milliseconds and that address is a pattern, but it leaves useRegex entirely unexplained and gives no defaults or optionality semantics. This is insufficient for the undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Wait'), a precise resource ('incoming OSC address pattern'), and a timeout qualifier. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like eos_command, key_press, and osc_reset, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without expanding the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools such as osc_reset or eos_event. The description simply states the operation, leaving the agent to infer appropriate call conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.