Skip to main content
Glama
bdstark

gma3-mcp

by bdstark
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Inspect the programmer

gma3_programmer

Read a structured, read-only view of active programmer values per UI channel by scope—all patched fixtures, current selection, or explicit ranges—with values, timing, and phaser steps.

Instructions

Structured view of active programmer values per UI channel (fixture, subfixture patch index, attribute, value, timing, phaser steps). Scope is explicit: all (every patched (sub)fixture, including unselected ones), selection (SelectionTable) or fixtures (an explicit range). Works with gma3_lua disabled (structured bridge op, plugin >= 0.3.0). Read-only: never changes selection, programmer or playback. ROWS ARE PROGRAMMER CONTENT, NOT OUTPUT VALUES (source "programmer"; use gma3_fixture_output/gma3_dmx for output). A row is emitted only when the console's activity masks show programmer data; value: 0 with present: true is a real zero, an absent row means no programmer value. Multi-step phasers keep every step in steps[] (value is null) with phaser-level fade/delay/speed/phase; phaser.supported is false with a reason when the API shape was unusable. coverage reports whether the scan was complete; when it is not (budget reached, API unavailable) the programmer is NOT claimed empty. Paginated. value is percent, valueRaw the 24-bit integer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum rows to return (default 200, max 5000).
scopeYesall = every patched (sub)fixture; selection = current selection; fixtures = the `fixtures` range.
offsetNoRows to skip (pagination).
fixturesNoRequired for scope "fixtures": fixture IDs/ranges such as "1 Thru 5", "101 + 103", "Fixture 501.3". Groups are not expanded.
max_channelsNoScan budget in UI channels per request (default 5000). The scan stops when reached and coverage.complete is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: read-only guarantee ('never changes selection, programmer or playback'), plugin version prerequisite, coverage semantics ('when not complete the programmer is NOT claimed empty'), value:0 with present:true vs absent-row semantics, and phaser step handling. This is unusually rich disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is dense but front-loaded: purpose, scope, read-only status, then the critical 'rows are programmer content' warning, followed by edge-case semantics. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the volume is heavy for a single description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return shape, and it does: row fields, value/valueRaw units, present/absent semantics, phaser steps[], and coverage.complete. An agent has everything needed to interpret results correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter (scope, limit, offset, fixtures, max_channels) is already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reiterates scope semantics and mentions pagination but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Structured view of active programmer values per UI channel') and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying rows are programmer content, not output values, pointing to gma3_fixture_output/gma3_dmx. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the three scope options and their meaning, and routes output-value queries to gma3_fixture_output/gma3_dmx. It clearly establishes the context in which this tool is correct, though it doesn't state explicit exclusions beyond the output-value distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools