Create multiple theatrical lighting cue lists in one request for LacyLights projects, assigning each list to a project with optional looping and descriptions.
Create multiple cue lists in a single operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cueLists | Yes | Array of cue lists to create |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "In a single operation" hints at batching, but it never says whether the batch is atomic (all-or-nothing) or partial on failure, how duplicate names are handled, or what permissions are required for a write. It merely restates the mutation implied by the name.
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 zero padding or repetition. It is efficient, though it is also the entire description, so there is no structure beyond the one clause.
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?
No output schema exists and parameter documentation is fully in the schema, so those gaps are covered. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description omits batch failure semantics and validation rules an agent would want before invoking it — minimum viable but not complete.
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% and the nested item fields (name, projectId, description, loop) are all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about the shape or requirements of the cueLists array.
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 and resource (create cue lists) plus the batching scope ("multiple... in a single operation"), which is the key distinction from the singular update_cue_list / delete_cue_list siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the bulk-vs-single intent is 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?
There is no statement of when to use this over alternatives (e.g., why batch rather than calling a single-create path repeatedly, or how it relates to bulk_update_cue_lists / bulk_delete_cue_lists). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance of any kind.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.