Create multiple theatrical lighting cues at once to save time. Add several cues to a cue list in a single GraphQL call instead of creating them one by one.
Create multiple cues in a single operation. All cues are created in one GraphQL call for efficiency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cues | Yes | Array of cues to create |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that everything goes in one GraphQL call, but says nothing about atomicity/partial-failure behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or validation rules for the nested cue objects.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the batching rationale second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is closer to an implementation note than decision-relevant information.
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?
Schema fully documents the single array parameter and there is no output schema to explain, but a mutation with no annotations should at least address failure semantics and prerequisites. Those gaps keep it at minimum-viable rather than 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 every nested field (name, cueNumber, lookId, cueListId, fade times) is documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or ordering detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 multiple cues') and the bulk nature is unambiguous, so an agent can separate it from single-cue tools like add_cue_to_list. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this versus add_cue_to_list, create_cue_sequence, or the single-cue creation path. The only hint is the word 'bulk', leaving the agent to infer the selection condition from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.