Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
propresenter-mcp

propresenter-mcp

by Marc416
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

library_trigger_presentation_cue

Trigger a specific cue in a ProPresenter library presentation to advance slides or activate media during live presentations.

Instructions

Trigger a specific cue of a presentation in a library

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "libraryId": "<libraryId>",
      "presentationId": "<presentationId>",
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "library_trigger_presentation_cue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
libraryIdYesThe ID of the library
presentationIdYesThe ID of the presentation
indexYesThe index of the cue to trigger (0-based)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral information. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, error states, or the effect on the system.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, very concise, but it is too brief for a tool with three required parameters and no annotations. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, no error handling info, no return values described. For a trigger action, the agent lacks knowledge of success signals or recovery steps if the cue is invalid.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action (trigger) and the specific target (a cue of a presentation in a library). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trigger_presentation_cue' by including 'in a library', though it does not define 'cue' further.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., trigger_focused_cue, trigger_presentation_cue) or what prerequisites exist. The agent must rely solely on parameter names.

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