vnyan-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set VNyan parameter via OSC

vnyan_osc_param

Set VNyan parameters directly by sending UDP OSC messages, supporting both float and string values without plugins or graph nodes.

Instructions

Sends a UDP OSC message to 127.0.0.1:28569 to directly set a VNyan parameter (/VNyan/Param/Float or /VNyan/Param/String depending on the value type). Source: native port, no plugin required. Fire-and-forget, no graph node needed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "vnyan_osc_param"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	VNyan parameter name to set
`value`	Yes	The value to set - a number sends /VNyan/Param/Float, a string sends /VNyan/Param/String. The address is chosen by this value's JS type, not by anything else in the call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description properly discloses network behavior (UDP, localhost:28569), address selection logic based on value type, and the fire-and-forget nature. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but these are minor for such a tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, two parameters), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it communicates, and the behavior for different value types.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining how the OSC address is chosen based on the value's JS type ('/VNyan/Param/Float' or '/VNyan/Param/String'), which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 sends a UDP OSC message to set a VNyan parameter, specifying the protocol, target, and mechanism. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that use graph nodes or plugins.

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?

Implied usage: 'fire-and-forget, no graph node needed' and 'source: native port, no plugin required' indicate when to use. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity among siblings like vnyan_param.

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