Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mainstage-mcp

mainstage-mcp

by ChristianLechner304
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mainstage_status

Check whether MainStage is running and list open concert windows to verify app state before building or editing concerts.

Instructions

Is MainStage running and which concert windows are open.

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": "mainstage_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Calling it a 'status' check implies a safe read with no side effects, and it discloses the two categories of information returned, but it says nothing about the return shape, whether it errors when MainStage is not running, or whether the call is expensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the primary question (is it running) before the secondary detail (open windows). It could be tightened into a declarative statement, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only documentation, and it covers the conceptual return content but not the concrete shape or field names. For a zero-parameter status probe that is close to adequate, though an agent still cannot predict the exact response or the not-running case.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource (MainStage) and two specific pieces of state it reports: whether the app is running and which concert windows are open. That distinguishes it from siblings such as list_concerts, which enumerate concerts rather than live window state. It is phrased as a question rather than a verb statement, which is slightly informal but not ambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites stated, and no mention of alternatives or follow-up actions. The agent can infer this is a cheap pre-flight check before calls like add_playback or set_channel, but that inference is left entirely to the reader.

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