List the COM-497 starter lighting effects available to launch as cues (e.g. "gobo-cycle", "x-move", "dimmer-pulse"). Each effect carries an id, the capabilities it needs, and a launch_contract template. Use the returned id as effect_id for launch_lighting_cue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds value by disclosing what each effect carries (id, capabilities, launch_contract template) and that these are a specific starter set. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, followed by the return-value structure and a direct usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description completely covers what it returns (effects with ids, capabilities, contract template) and how to use the result. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so the description naturally doesn't need to explain any. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no further semantic detail is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('COM-497 starter lighting effects') with concrete examples. It also distinguishes this from sibling tool 'list_lighting_cues' by specifying these are effects for launching cues, not existing cues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to obtain effect IDs for launching cues, and instructs to 'Use the returned id as effect_id for launch_lighting_cue.' While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the intended use case is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.