Combine existing looks into an ordered lighting cue sequence for a project and script context, with optional transition preferences.
Create a sequence of lighting cues from existing looks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookIds | Yes | Look IDs to include in sequence | |
| projectId | Yes | Project ID to create cue sequence in | |
| sequenceName | Yes | Name for the cue sequence | |
| scriptContext | Yes | Script context for the cue sequence | |
| transitionPreferences | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / lookIdsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Look IDs to include in sequence",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / sceneIdsRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Scene IDs to include in sequence",
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "projectId",
- "scriptContext",
- "sceneIds",
- "sequenceName"
-]New value: +[
+ "projectId",
+ "scriptContext",
+ "lookIds",
+ "sequenceName"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say whether existing looks are modified, whether the sequence is persisted with generated IDs, what ordering/side effects transitionPreferences produces, or what permissions are required. For a create/mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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 tight sentence with the action and source front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a five-parameter mutation tool.
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?
Five parameters (four required), a nested transitionPreferences object, no output schema, and no annotations leave a lot unexplained. The description omits return value, the meaning of the nested transition options, and whether looks are consumed or copied.
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 80%, so the schema already documents the individual parameters; baseline is 3. The description's 'from existing looks' loosely maps to lookIds but adds nothing about scriptContext or the nested transitionPreferences object.
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 clear verb+resource ('Create a sequence of lighting cues') and names the source material ('from existing looks'), which distinguishes it from nearby tools like bulk_create_cues. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer when the agent just wants raw cues.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as generate_act_cues, bulk_create_cues, and add_cue_to_list available, the description never says which situation calls for a sequence built from looks versus these alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.