Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tdmcp

tdmcp

by lucasmaher-hash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Projector calibration wizard

projector_calibration_wizard

Build a rehearsal-safe projector calibration network with per-projector corner pin, crop, and brightness/gamma controls. Preview layout, use a grid or existing source, and verify on physical outputs.

Instructions

Build a rehearsal-safe projector calibration network: generated grid/crosshair or selected source TOP, per-projector crop/corner-pin/level/output lanes, preview layout, notes, and brightness/gamma controls. Live projector alignment remains explicitly unverified until run on the physical outputs.

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": "projector_calibration_wizard"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName for the generated calibration container.projector_calibration
widthNoPer-lane output width.
heightNoPer-lane output height.
overlapNoNormalized overlap reserved for soft-edge alignment notes.
projectorsNoNumber of projector lanes to scaffold.
parent_pathNoParent COMP path to build inside./project1
source_pathNoOptional existing TOP to calibrate. Omit to generate a built-in grid/crosshair.
expose_controlsNoExpose Brightness and Gamma controls on every projector lane.
include_corner_pinNoInsert a Corner Pin TOP per projector lane for keystone alignment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.13.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly notes that live projector alignment is 'unverified until run on the physical outputs,' which sets expectations for safety and reliability. This is more transparent than simply stating 'build' and provides a clear caveat.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently enumerates the built components without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and safety profile.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's core purpose and components. It does not mention the return value (e.g., the generated COMP path), but for a build tool this is often implied by the name/parent_path parameters. The safety caveat adds important context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to use it, though a note on return type would improve completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, the parameters are individually well-described. The tool description adds architectural context by linking parameters (e.g., source_path as TOP selection, include_corner_pin as corner pin, expose_controls as brightness/gamma controls, projectors as per-projector lanes). This helps users understand how the parameters fit together, going beyond mere schema repetition.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('projector calibration network'). It lists concrete components (grid/crosshair, per-projector crop/corner-pin/level/output lanes, preview layout, notes, brightness/gamma controls), distinguishing it from generic mapping tools like create_projection_mapping by emphasizing 'calibration' and 'rehearsal-safe'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context: it is rehearsal-safe and alignment remains unverified until run on physical outputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_projection_mapping, nor does it provide clear exclusions. The note about unverified alignment hints at a limitation but lacks direct guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools