tdmcp

Connect CasparCG server

connect_casparcg_server

Build a CasparCG AMCP playout control scaffold with channel/layer templates and media manifest notes to manage broadcast commands.

Instructions

Create a CasparCG AMCP/playout scaffold with channel/layer command templates and media manifest notes.

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": "connect_casparcg_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Generated baseCOMP name.	casparcg_server
`active`	No
`amcp_port`	No
`caspar_host`	No		127.0.0.1
`layer_count`	No
`parent_path`	No	Parent COMP for the CasparCG scaffold.	/project1
`channel_count`	No
`media_root_hint`	No		media/

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.13.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns by saying 'Create a scaffold.' It adds some context about the scaffold's contents, but does not disclose whether a live server connection is established or if it only creates local templates.

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 redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately specifies key deliverables.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the parameters influence the scaffold. With 8 optional parameters and no return value info, the description is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke and use the tool.

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 only 25% (2 out of 8 parameters), and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters like amcp_port, caspar_host, layer_count, or channel_count. It only vaguely references channel/layer templates without connecting to specific params.

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 creates a CasparCG AMCP/playout scaffold with specific components (channel/layer command templates, media manifest notes). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from other 'connect_*' tools.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the usage context implicit.

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

Deploy Server