tdmcp

Connect MIDI MPE controller

connect_midi_mpe_controller

Create expressive MIDI MPE input/output scaffolds with zone and expression maps for pressure, timbre, pitch bend, and note channels.

Instructions

Create an expressive MIDI MPE input/output scaffold with zone and expression maps for pressure, timbre, pitch bend, and note channels.

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_midi_mpe_controller"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Generated baseCOMP name.	midi_mpe_controller
`active`	No
`device_name`	No		MPE Controller
`parent_path`	No	Parent COMP for the MPE scaffold.	/project1
`include_output`	No
`expression_count`	No
`lower_zone_channels`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.13.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'create' but does not disclose behavioral details like side effects, whether it overwrites existing nodes, connection requirements, or any limitations. Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, but the description adds no further safety or side-effect context.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could add more detail without becoming verbose, but it is efficient and clear.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a complex topic (MIDI MPE), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the scaffold looks like, what the return value is, or what the configuration options mean. The tool requires deeper guidance for reliable use.

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 low (29%): only 'name' and 'parent_path' have descriptions. The description mentions zone and expression maps but does not explain key parameters like expression_count, lower_zone_channels, include_output, or device_name. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 an expressive MIDI MPE input/output scaffold with zone and expression maps for pressure, timbre, pitch bend, and note channels. This is a specific verb+resource+features, distinct from sibling tools like create_midi_map or create_midi_note_reactive.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context 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