tdmcp

Create LTC timecode bridge

create_ltc_timecode_bridge

Build an LTC timecode bridge scaffold with In/Out CHOP placeholders, cue maps, and routing notes for receive/generate modes.

Instructions

Create an LTC receive/generate scaffold with LTC In/Out CHOP placeholders, cue maps, and routing 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": "create_ltc_timecode_bridge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No		receive
`name`	No	Generated baseCOMP name.	ltc_timecode_bridge
`active`	No
`cue_count`	No
`frame_rate`	No		30
`parent_path`	No	Parent COMP for the LTC timecode scaffold.	/project1
`input_device`	No
`output_device`	No

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 already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-destructive write. The description adds scaffold composition details but does not disclose side effects like creating nodes at parent_path, potential overwrites, or environment requirements.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists concrete scaffold components. Every phrase adds value with no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description omits how parameters affect the scaffold, what the tool returns, and the resulting network structure. It reads as a high-level overview rather than a complete specification for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Only 2 of 8 parameters have schema descriptions (25% coverage). The description does not compensate, offering no explanation of mode, cue_count, frame_rate, or device parameters. Agents must rely on names and enums, which is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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 LTC receive/generate scaffold with specific components (LTC In/Out CHOP placeholders, cue maps, routing notes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sync_timecode by emphasizing it is a scaffold rather than a working bridge.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sync_timecode or add_timecode_overlay. No prerequisites, use-case context, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer when a scaffold is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server