Skip to main content
Glama

Compeller

by ai.compeller

launch_lighting_cue

Launch a starter lighting effect onto a stage as a live cue (e.g. "gobo-cycle on the stage's 7R beams at speed 0.5"). Pass effect_id (from list_lighting_effects) and optional variables to override effect defaults. Validation is loud: an unknown effect, a launch_contract whose bindings a stage cannot render, or a missing required field is rejected. Returns the active cue including its launch_id, resolved variables, and launch_contract for REACT. REACT executes the cue per-frame; the live strobe slider stays authoritative and is never raised by a launch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stage_idNoThe stage to launch onto (must belong to the authenticated account)
effect_idNoCOM-497 starter effect id from list_lighting_effects, e.g. "gobo-cycle"
variablesNoOptional variable overrides (name -> value), e.g. {"speed": 0.5}. Defaults come from the effect.
launch_contractNoAdvanced: an explicit launch_contract to launch instead of resolving one from effect_id.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses several behaviors beyond the sparse annotations: loud validation failures, return of the active cue for REACT, per-frame execution, and the authoritative strobe slider. This gives the agent a strong sense of side effects and error handling.

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?

Four dense sentences, each adding value: purpose, parameter guidance, validation behavior, and return/execution details. No filler; front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a tool with 4 params, nested objects, and no output schema, the description fully explains return values, execution model, and edge cases, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke confidently.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats schema info (effect_id from list_lighting_effects, variables override defaults) but adds no new parameter details beyond the example 'speed 0.5'.

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 function: launching a starter lighting effect onto a stage as a live cue, with a concrete example. It distinguishes from siblings like list_lighting_cues (listing) and stop_lighting_cue (stopping) by emphasizing the live launch action.

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?

Provides clear context: use effect_id from list_lighting_effects and optional variables to override defaults. It implies a prerequisite (list effects first) but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools beyond the implied one.

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

All Compeller toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action or resource. Groups like compels, lighting cues, webhooks, and account are clearly separated, and even similar tools (create_compel vs create_compel_from_music) have well-defined differences in input source.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., cancel_compel, launch_lighting_cue, register_webhook). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verb choices.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the server is above the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the scope includes multiple subdomains, the high number adds cognitive load and risks selection errors for an agent.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are present (create, read, cancel, list, search, render), but missing update/delete for compels and media, and no way to modify render configuration beyond defaults.

Resources