Set the intensity level for the currently selected fixtures on an ETC Eos console. Assign a 0-100% value to the active OSC selection, enabling direct level control without manual command line entry.
Set level for the current OSC selection via /eos/at
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context by referencing the OSC selection and the /eos/at command path, but it does not describe side effects beyond setting the level or explain what destructive consequences might occur.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core action, target, and mechanism with no filler. Every part contributes meaning, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple and mostly explained by the description plus schema. However, the optional 'confirm' parameter is not elaborated, and there is no explanation of what happens when it is used. Given no output schema and sparse behavioral detail, the description is adequate but leaves some gaps.
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 0%, so the description should compensate for the parameter schema. It only implies the 'level' parameter via the tool name and description, and it provides no semantic information about the optional 'confirm' parameter. The schema provides value ranges, but the description adds little meaning beyond that.
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?
The description identifies a specific action ('Set level'), a specific resource ('current OSC selection'), and the mechanism ('via /eos/at'). It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling tools like submaster_set_level, group_set_level, and channel_set_level by scoping it to the current OSC selection.
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?
The phrase 'current OSC selection' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the user wants to set the level of whatever is currently selected via OSC. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide selection among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.