tdmcp

Diagnose hardware environment

diagnose_hardware_environment

Read-only

Run preflight hardware checks for TouchDesigner installations: verify reachability, display topology, and status DAT health with PASS/WARNING/FAIL/UNVERIFIED results.

Instructions

Read-only: check whether TouchDesigner is reachable, whether display/projector topology matches expectations, and whether generated sensor/helper status DATs such as source_status or bridge_status are healthy. This is a room/hardware preflight for physical installations; it returns PASS/WARNING/FAIL/UNVERIFIED checks without mutating the TD project.

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": "diagnose_hardware_environment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`include`	No	Subset of hardware checks to run. Defaults to bridge + display, and also status_surfaces when status_paths is non-empty.
`status_paths`	No	Optional DAT paths containing generated status JSON, such as source_status or bridge_status.
`expected_min_monitors`	No	Optional minimum display/monitor count expected for the room/projector setup.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bridge`	No
`checks`	Yes
`system`	No
`overall`	Yes
`endpoint`	Yes
`connected`	Yes
`status_surfaces`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.13.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and 'without mutating the TD project.' It adds behavioral details about the check types, return statuses (PASS/WARNING/FAIL/UNVERIFIED), and dependency on generated DATs, which goes beyond the annotation values.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only' and then the specific checks. Every phrase adds value: scope, return type, and context. No fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it. It covers the purpose, safety profile, return statuses, and example DATs. The existence of an output schema means return-value details need not be spelled out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions example DAT paths (source_status, bridge_status) and the overall purpose, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and clearly lists the resources checked (TD reachability, display/projector topology, status DATs), distinguishing it from general info tools like get_td_info or get_td_topology. The phrase 'room/hardware preflight' reinforces its specific purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a clear usage context: 'a room/hardware preflight for physical installations.' While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the context is enough to guide an agent on when to select this over a general topology or info tool. No exclusions are stated, but the preflight framing is a strong signal.

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

Deploy Server