Uploads a .fseq sequence and optional audio file to Falcon Pi Player so light shows can play on the controller.
Upload a sequence (.fseq) and optional audio to Falcon Pi Player.
Args: fseq_path: Path to the .fseq file to upload audio_path: Optional path to the audio file (.mp3/.ogg)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fseq_path | Yes | ||
| audio_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutating remote upload, whether an existing sequence with the same name is overwritten, where files land on the device, whether auth/network access is required, or what happens on partial failure (e.g., sequence succeeds but audio fails).
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 lines plus an Args block, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Efficient and scannable, with no filler.
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 write operation against a remote device with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say something about the result (does it return a confirmation or path?) and about overwrite/destination semantics. Those gaps leave the agent guessing about side effects.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does document both parameters and adds format constraints (.mp3/.ogg) that the schema lacks. However, it never clarifies whether paths are on the local machine or the FPP device, nor whether the audio must match sequence length or naming.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: upload a .fseq sequence (plus optional audio) to a Falcon Pi Player. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented FPP siblings (fpp_status, fpp_list_playlists, fpp_start_playlist), though it never explicitly names how it differs.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (must the sequence exist locally? must a playlist/show exist first?), and no note on ordering relative to fpp_start_playlist. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.