Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
propresenter-mcp

propresenter-mcp

by Marc416
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

looks_trigger

Activate a specific audience look in ProPresenter to make it live during presentations.

Instructions

Trigger a specific audience look to make it live/current

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "looks_trigger"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the look to trigger

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details. It only says 'make it live/current', which implies state change, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., replacing the current look), required permissions, or idempotency. The agent is left guessing about the impact.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that starts with the action verb. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy. It is appropriately short for a simple tool.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core functionality. However, it lacks context about success/failure signals, potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), or post-trigger behavior, which would help an agent use it effectively.

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 a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Trigger') and the resource ('audience look') and the desired outcome ('make it live/current'), effectively distinguishing it from readonly look tools like looks_get. However, the term 'audience look' could be more precisely defined for new users.

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., other trigger tools for different entities or even looks_get to verify state). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to have retrieved the look ID first, or when not to use it.

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