Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GMA2 MCP

GMA2 MCP

by chienchuanw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

label_macro_tool

Label a macro in the grandMA2 macro pool by providing the macro number and a name for easy identification.

Instructions

Label a macro in the macro pool.

Args:
    macro_id: Macro number to label
    name: Label text for the macro

Returns:
    str: Operation result message

Examples:
    - Label macro 5 as "Blackout All"

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": {
      "macro_id": "<macro_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "label_macro_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
macro_idYes
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether labeling overwrites an existing label, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The example is basic but insufficient.

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 description is concise with a clear structure (Args, Returns, Example). Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (returns str), the description covers the basics. However, it could mention whether labeling is idempotent or if it overwrites existing labels, which would improve completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear, actionable meaning for both parameters: 'macro_id: Macro number to label' and 'name: Label text for the macro', which compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Label' and the resource 'macro in the macro pool', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_macro' (creating a new macro) and 'delete_macro_tool' (deleting a macro).

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 vs alternatives like 'create_macro', 'run_macro', or 'set_macro_line'. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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