Create multiple lighting looks in one operation, with fixture values and project IDs, and return all created looks with their IDs for batch scene setup.
Create multiple looks in a single operation. Returns all created looks with their IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| looks | Yes | Array of looks 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. It usefully discloses the return payload ('all created looks with their IDs'), which offsets the absent output schema, but says nothing about atomicity, partial-failure behavior, size limits, or permission requirements for a nested write operation.
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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contract. No filler or redundancy.
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 deeply nested bulk-write with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and return shape but omits error/atomicity semantics and any limits on batch size. It is minimally adequate 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%, so the nested items, required fields, and DMX value bounds are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves it at the 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 and resource ('Create multiple looks') and notes the batch nature ('in a single operation'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as bulk_update_looks or generate_look, but the 'bulk create' framing and the 'multiple looks' scope are clear enough to select it.
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 guidance on when to use this versus update_look, generate_look, or bulk_update_looks, and no prerequisites are stated despite each look requiring a projectId. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.