tdmcp

Connect Max/MSP bridge

connect_max_msp_bridge

Build a Max/MSP OSC bridge scaffold with parameter and audio-feature channel maps, enabling bidirectional communication with TouchDesigner.

Instructions

Create a Max/MSP OSC bridge scaffold with parameter and audio-feature channel maps.

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_max_msp_bridge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Generated baseCOMP name.	max_msp_bridge
`active`	No
`max_host`	No	Max/MSP OSC host.	127.0.0.1
`namespace`	No	OSC namespace prefix.	/tdmcp
`send_port`	No
`parent_path`	No	Parent COMP for the Max/MSP scaffold.	/project1
`receive_port`	No
`channel_count`	No
`include_audio_features`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.13.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already state readOnly=false and destructive=false, but the description adds little beyond that. It hints at 'feature channel maps' but doesn't explain side effects, required environment, or what the scaffold actually creates.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. However, it sacrifices valuable information; still, this is a conciseness strength rather than a flaw.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain, the description is too sparse. It omits behavioral details, prerequisites, return values, and usage context, making it insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 only 44% and the description does not compensate. It mentions channel maps generally but avoids specifics on ports, channel_count, audio features, or any parameter syntax, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Create' and names the resource 'Max/MSP OSC bridge scaffold' plus channel maps, which distinguishes it from other bridge tools. However, 'scaffold' is somewhat vague and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites. Given many sibling bridge tools, the description leaves the agent without criteria for selection.

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

Deploy Server