GMA2 MCP

delete_fixture

Remove a fixture permanently from the grandMA2 lighting console patch by specifying its fixture ID.

Instructions

Delete a fixture from the patch (destructive).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fixture_id": "<fixture_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_fixture"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fixture_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description labels the tool as 'destructive' but provides no details on side effects (e.g., deleting associated cues), required permissions, or reversibility. Without annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence) and to the point, but lacks necessary detail. It is concise but under-specified for a deletion tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's destructive nature and single parameter, the description should explain consequences (e.g., does it also remove from cues? Is it permanent?) and required state of the fixture. It falls short of being complete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the fixture_id parameter (e.g., how to obtain it, what range of values are valid). The schema states it's an integer, but no additional meaning is provided.

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?

The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (fixture from patch) with a note that it's destructive. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clone_fixtures, park_fixture, and unpark_fixture by indicating a permanent removal.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., fixture must be unparked?) or situations where other tools might be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server