Create several look boards for a LacyLights project in a single request. Provide each board's name, project ID, canvas size, grid size, and default fade time.
Create multiple look boards in a single operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookBoards | Yes | Array of look boards 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 burden. It does not disclose whether the batch is atomic or partially applied on error, who is authorized to create boards, or any rate/size limits — all critical for a bulk mutation.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 bulk mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain at minimum error/partial-failure behavior and the shape of the result. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict what a returned call means.
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 single lookBoards array parameter is self-documented with per-item name/projectId requirements and defaults for gridSize, canvas dimensions, and fade time. The description adds no further meaning beyond that baseline.
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 (Create) and resource (look boards) plus the batch qualifier 'multiple ... in a single operation', which distinguishes it from the sibling create_look_board. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls 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 choose this over create_look_board or the other bulk siblings, no batch-size limits, and no prerequisites such as project existence or permissions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.