Activate a look from a board using its default fade time, or override the fade duration when needed.
Activate a look from a board (uses board's default fade time unless overridden).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookId | Yes | Look ID to activate | |
| lookBoardId | Yes | Look board ID | |
| fadeTimeOverride | No | Optional fade time override in seconds |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses that the board's default fade time applies unless overridden, which is real behavioral context, but a state-changing action tool should also say what activation affects (live output), whether it supersedes a currently active look, or any prerequisites. Those gaps keep it at a 3.
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?
A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the one non-obvious behavioral nuance tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing wasted.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a fully documented param set, the definition is minimally serviceable. It tells the agent what the tool does and the fade default, but says nothing about the result of activation or how it interacts with playback state, which matters for an action tool.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's fade-time note merely echoes the fadeTimeOverride parameter. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (activate) plus resource (a look) and scopes it to 'from a board', which meaningfully separates it from the sibling activate_look. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.
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 phrase 'from a board' implies this is the variant to use when the look lives on a look board rather than being activated directly, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative activate_look. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.