lookup_tv_mount_specsThe VESA mounting pattern, dimensions with and without stand, weight and screen size for a TV or monitor model number, from the manufacturer's manual or spec sheet, with the whatmount.com page to cite. Give the model number as printed on the label (e.g. UN65TU7000, 65Q650G).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | No | Brand, optional, e.g. Samsung | |
| model | Yes | Model number, e.g. QN55Q60A |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: data comes from the manufacturer's manual or spec sheet, a whatmount.com citation page is provided, and the model must match the printed label. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 compact sentences: the first front-loads the returned fields and source, the second clarifies the exact model-number format. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description covers the expected return content well and notes the citation source and input format. It does not discuss failure behavior or unit conventions, but for a read-only lookup with a simple one-required-parameter schema, the guidance is sufficient.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value for the required model parameter by instructing agents to use the model number as printed on the label and providing concrete examples. That clarifies formatting more than the schema alone does.
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 names a specific verb (lookup) and resource (TV or monitor mount specs) and enumerates the exact output fields: VESA pattern, dimensions with/without stand, weight, and screen size. It also scopes to model number, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that search by VESA pattern or TV models.
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 clearly states what this tool is for and gives labeling guidance, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or state when to prefer list_models_by_vesa_pattern or search_tv_models.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct query mode: reverse lookup by VESA pattern, exact model specification lookup, and flexible model search. The slight overlap in returned specs is mitigated by clear input differences (model number vs brand/fragment/screen size).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case: list_models_by_vesa_pattern, lookup_tv_mount_specs, and search_tv_models. The verbs are semantically distinct and the object naming is uniform.
Three tools is at the lower end of the ideal range, but this is a narrowly scoped reference server and each tool serves a necessary, non-redundant purpose. No filler or overlapping tools are present.
For a read-only factual lookup service, the surface covers the main entry points: search by model/brand/size, exact model specification lookup, and reverse lookup by VESA pattern. There are no obvious dead ends for the domain.