Create multiple fixture definitions in one call to add several manufacturer/model fixture types, their channels, and modes to the system at once.
Create multiple fixture definitions in a single operation. Use this to efficiently add multiple fixture types (manufacturer/model combinations) to the system at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| definitions | Yes | Array of fixture definitions 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 are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a bulk mutation. It says nothing about permissions required, duplicate manufacturer/model handling, partial-failure semantics when one of many definitions is invalid, or whether the operation is transactional — all critical for a batch write.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a nested bulk-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does but omits the behavioral detail an agent needs to call it safely — batch error behavior, duplicates, and what is returned on success.
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 nested fields (type, model, modes, channels, channel offsets, DMX min/max/default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, 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 fixture definitions, with the parenthetical clarifying that a definition is a manufacturer/model combination. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling bulk_create_fixtures (which presumably creates fixture instances rather than definitions), leaving the definition-vs-instance boundary implicit.
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?
"Use this to efficiently add multiple fixture types... at once" implies the usage context is bulk insertion, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs bulk_create_fixtures, no guidance on single vs bulk, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.