Send an Eos console event using /eos/event syntax to trigger actions on ETC lighting consoles. Use it to execute command-line entries like cue, level, or macro operations.
Send a console event via /eos/event (same syntax as eos_command)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| terminator | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and syntax reference, but fails to reveal any behavioral traits: whether the event causes side effects, requires confirmation, how the terminator affects execution, or what the response looks like. The reference to eos_command is not descriptive of this tool's own behavior.
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 with no wasted words, which earns points for brevity. However, it lacks any structure beyond the bare statement, and it is so sparse that it fails to convey essential context. The brevity is not balanced with adequate clarity.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about parameter semantics, use cases, or expected behavior, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid invocation confidently. The only hint is the reference to eos_command, which is not elaborated.
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?
The schema has 3 parameters (text, confirm, terminator) with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. The phrase 'same syntax as eos_command' does not explain what each parameter means or how they relate. An agent cannot infer the purpose of 'confirm' or the terminator enum values from this description.
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 clearly states the action ('Send a console event') and the resource (the /eos/event endpoint). It references eos_command for syntax, which gives a hint of its scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling eos_command, so the purpose is clear but not well-distinguished.
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 description only says 'same syntax as eos_command' but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus eos_command or other siblings like key_press. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.