Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pixelblaze

pixelblaze

by tomnz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

pixelblaze_get_controls

Get the UI controls for the active LED pattern, returning sliders, toggles, and pickers with their names and current values.

Instructions

Get the UI controls for the currently active pattern.

Returns a list of control dicts, each with 'name', 'value', and 'type' keys. The controls correspond to exported slider/toggle/picker variables in the pattern code.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pixelblaze_get_controls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It mentions return format but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover error conditions, prerequisites like a connected device or active pattern, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds detail. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description adequately explains the return format and purpose. However, given the presence of an output schema, the description already covers it. Missing context about error handling, prerequisites, or required device state. Adequate but not thorough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There are no parameters, schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining the return format but does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool gets UI controls for the currently active pattern and specifies the return format. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pixelblaze_set_control.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when UI controls are needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are 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