eos-mcp-server

Select Eos Cue

eos_select_cue

Read-onlyIdempotent

Select a cue without firing it, enabling inspection or raw edits before the cue runs.

Instructions

Select a cue on the command line without firing it — useful before eos_record_cue-style raw edits, or to inspect a cue before running it.

Args:

cue_list (number): Cue list number.
cue_number (string): Cue number to select.

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": {
      "cue_list": "<cue_list>",
      "cue_number": "<cue_number>"
    },
    "name": "eos_select_cue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cue_list`	Yes
`cue_number`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these by explaining the 'without firing it' behavior and the inspect/edit use case, clarifying that no cue is activated. It complements rather than contradicts the annotations.

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 two sentences plus a compact arg list. It is front-loaded with the core behavior, then usage guidance, then parameters. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple selection tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, side-effect behavior, usage context, and parameter meanings. No output schema is present, but none is needed for this operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It provides basic meaning for both parameters ('Cue list number', 'Cue number to select'), but this largely restates the parameter names. Additional format details (e.g., why cue_number is a string, allowing decimals) would have been more informative.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Select' with a clear resource ('a cue') and scoping ('on the command line without firing it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eos_fire_cue, eos_go, and others, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: 'useful before eos_record_cue-style raw edits, or to inspect a cue before running it.' This gives concrete context and implies exclusions (e.g., not for firing cues), making the appropriate invocation scenario clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server