Advance to the next presentation in ProPresenter to maintain presentation flow during live events or rehearsals.
Focus the next presentation
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": "focus_next_presentation"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state whether focusing is a read-only action, changes active state, has side effects, or requires any prerequisites. The agent lacks essential safety or state change information.
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?
The description is extremely concise at five words. It is not wasteful, but it may be overly brief, lacking important context. Structure is minimal with no title or sections.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'focus' means or how 'next' is determined, leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct invocation.
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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It does not repeat the schema's empty structure.
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 'focus' and the resource 'presentation', but it does not differentiate from siblings like focus_presentation or focus_previous_presentation. The term 'next' is used but lacks context (e.g., next in a playlist, timeline, or order).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that focus presentations, the agent receives no information about when 'next' is appropriate or what the current context (e.g., playlist, order) is.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.