Analyze theatrical scripts to extract lighting-relevant details, specific cues, and optional look suggestions for LacyLights design planning.
Analyze a theatrical script to extract lighting-relevant information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scriptText | Yes | The theatrical script text to analyze | |
| suggestLooks | No | Generate look suggestions based on analysis | |
| extractLightingCues | No | Extract specific lighting cues from the script |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / suggestLooksAdded value: +{
+ "default": true,
+ "description": "Generate look suggestions based on analysis",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / suggestScenesRemoved value: -{
- "default": true,
- "description": "Generate scene suggestions based on analysis",
- "type": "boolean"
-}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states whether the tool is read-only, whether it mutates the project, what the extraction produces, or how the boolean flags change behavior. For a 3-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 two behavior-altering boolean flags defaulting to true, the description should explain what the analysis returns and what each flag toggles. It explains neither, leaving the agent unable to predict the result or the side effects.
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. The description adds nothing beyond a loose nod to 'lighting-relevant information' and does not explain the interaction between suggestLooks and extractLightingCues. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (analyze) and resource (theatrical script) with a clear output scope (lighting-relevant information). It is distinguishable from neighboring tools like analyze_cue_structure and analyze_fixture_capabilities by its input resource, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent cannot tell whether this is a first step before generate_act_cues or a standalone check, nor whether results feed anything else.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.