Show live deck status as a rich card with play state, BPM, key, volume, loop, and sync data for a specified deck, including test attributes for automation.
Show live deck status as a rich Prefab card.
Displays play state, BPM, key, volume, loop status, and sync state for the specified deck with data-testid attributes for CUA/Playwright testing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck | No | Deck number (1-4, default: 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses that the output is a rich Prefab card carrying data-testid attributes for automated testing, which is non-obvious behavioral context, but it never states that the operation is read-only/side-effect free or whether a live deck session is required.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the rendered contents. No filler, though the testing-attribute clause is somewhat tacked on rather than integrated.
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?
For a trivial one-optional-param display tool with no output schema, the description covers what is shown and why the card structure matters. Only the read-only nature and any session prerequisite are left unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and the single deck parameter is fully documented in the schema (range 1-4, default 1). The description only says "the specified deck," adding no format, range, or default information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ("Show live deck status") and enumerates the fields rendered (play state, BPM, key, volume, loop, sync). The deck-vs-mixer-vs-library distinction against siblings like show_mixer_status_card and show_library_status_card is conveyed via the resource but never made explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied from the fact that it renders a card for a specified deck; there is no statement of when to reach for this versus the other status-card siblings, and no prerequisites. The mention of CUA/Playwright testing hints at a context but is not framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.