Set your LED strip to any of 210 built-in animation patterns by index or name, such as rainbow or strobe, to customize desktop lighting.
Set LED strip to a built-in animation pattern by index (0-210) or name. Examples: rainbow, strobe, wave, breathing, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Pattern name (e.g. fwd_dreaming, strobe_7c, gradual_7c, hop_rgb) | |
| index | No | Pattern index (0-210) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive local operation. The description adds useful context that the pattern is built-in and that indexes range from 0 to 210, but it does not disclose error behavior for invalid indexes or whether a parameter is required.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by helpful examples. No sentence is wasted.
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 two-parameter setter with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, it omits routing guidance against led_effect and does not state that at least one of name or index must effectively be provided.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so name and index are already documented. The description repeats the index range and gives pattern-name examples, but it does not add important semantics such as whether name and index are mutually exclusive, whether both may be supplied, or which takes precedence.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource: set the LED strip to a built-in animation pattern by index or name. It distinguishes this from color/brightness/power siblings, but does not clarify how it differs from the led_effect sibling.
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?
The description states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus led_effect or other LED tools. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.