GMA2 MCP

send_raw_command

Send any grandMA2 command directly for specialized control not available through high-level tools.

Instructions

Send a raw MA command to grandMA2.

This is a low-level tool that allows sending any grandMA2 command-line instruction.
It is recommended to use other high-level tools first; use this tool only when
special commands are needed.

Args:
    command: Raw MA command to send

Returns:
    str: Operation result message

Examples:
    - blackout
    - go+ executor 1.1
    - store sequence 1 cue 1

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": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "send_raw_command"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`command`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. The description states it is low-level and sends raw commands, but does not disclose potential risks, side effects, or error behavior. Returns 'Operation result message' gives minimal insight. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Description is concise with a main sentence, usage note, and structured Args/Returns sections. Examples add value. Some redundancy with schema but acceptable. Efficient use of space.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter, and return value (textual output schema). Could mention validity or error handling, but given low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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% (no param description in schema). The description adds 'Raw MA command to send' for the 'command' parameter, providing essential meaning. Could include format or constraints, but compensates well.

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 'Send a raw MA command to grandMA2', specifying the verb and resource. Examples like 'blackout', 'go+ executor 1.1', and 'store sequence 1 cue 1' further clarify its purpose. It distinguishes itself from high-level sibling tools by being a low-level command tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance: 'It is recommended to use other high-level tools first; use this tool only when special commands are needed.' This tells the agent when to use and when not to use, implicitly referencing alternatives among siblings.

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

Deploy Server