Review an existing xLights sequence file to see song info, duration, models used, and effect summary.
Inspect an existing xLights sequence file.
Shows the song info, duration, models used, and effect summary.
Args: sequence_name: Name of the sequence (without .xsq extension)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sequence_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does signal a non-mutating operation ("Inspect", "Shows") and names the categories of information returned. It does not say what happens if the file is missing, whether effects are truncated/summarized, or anything about cost or size for large sequences.
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-load the purpose and output content, then the argument note. The docstring-style "Args:" block is slightly redundant for a single parameter but carries real format information, so it earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the response will contain and how to format the filename, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the error/precondition behavior is left unstated.
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 0% and the schema only labels the field "Sequence Name", so the description must compensate. It does: the only parameter is explained as the sequence name without the .xsq extension, which is the crucial format detail an agent would otherwise get wrong.
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 (inspect) and resource (an existing xLights sequence file), then enumerates what it returns: song info, duration, models used, effect summary. This clearly separates it from sibling write/list tools like create_sequence, remap_sequence and list_sequences, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 word "existing" implies the sequence must already be present and that this is the read/detail path, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as list_sequences for discovery. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.