agentView

Pair Display by Code

pair_by_code

Pairs a physical screen with the 6-character code shown on https://display.agentview.de — the recommended first-time setup: ask the user to open that URL on the TV and read the code, then call this (creates and pairs in one step). Pass target_display_id to rebind an EXISTING display profile onto new hardware instead (keeps name, settings, content). Requires admin. A connector session normally holds content scope only, which is NOT a dead end and does NOT need the connector re-authorized: run create_auth_session with scope 'admin', show the user the loginUrl, poll get_auth_session until active, then call this again with that session_request_id. The handle authorizes the call even when the connector's own token cannot.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	The 6-character pairing code shown on the display (e.g. 'AB3K7F').
`access_token`	No	Optional bearer token; prefer session_request_id.
`profile_name`	No	Friendly name for the display (required for new pairing, ignored for rebind). Example: 'Lobby Screen'.
`target_display_id`	No	To rebind: the existing display profile ID to switch to the new hardware. Omit for new display pairing.
`session_request_id`	No	Session handle from create_auth_session; pass it on every authenticated call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`profileId`	No
`linkedHardwareId`	No

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It discloses that the call both creates and pairs in one step and that rebinding keeps name, settings, and content. It further reveals the admin requirement and the auth-scope failure mode, adding valuable context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded, opening with the core pair action before moving to rebinding and the auth edge case. Each sentence adds distinct procedural or prerequisite value; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It covers the happy path, the rebind variant, admin requirements, an authentication recovery flow, and when to poll get_auth_session. Since output schema exists, return values are already covered; nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds decision rules: profile_name is required for new pairing but ignored on rebind; target_display_id is the switch for rebinding; session_request_id comes from create_auth_session. This materially enriches parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific action — pairing a physical screen with a 6-character code — and immediately distinguishes first-time pairing from rebinding an existing display profile via target_display_id. This makes it distinct from broader siblings like create_display or claim_display.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly presents itself as the recommended first-time setup with step-by-step user instructions, and gives the alternative rebind path with target_display_id. It also details when to use create_auth_session/get_auth_session first and explicitly says re-authorization is not needed, providing strong decision guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agentView tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct resource-action pairs (displays, organizations, assets, data slots, store templates, auth). A few clusters like the get_store_template_* family and the auth/session tools could still confuse an agent, but their descriptions are explicit enough to separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is consistent verb_noun snake_case (list_*, get_*, create_*, delete_*, send_*, set_*, manage_*). Deviations like fetch, search, authenticate, logout, and pair_by_code are understandable but break the otherwise uniform naming scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 57 tools this server far exceeds the 50+ threshold, creating an extreme tool-set size for an MCP server. Even though the underlying platform is feature-rich, the sheer number of tools heavily taxes context and selection.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers display, organization, asset, data slot, store template, auth, API key, and licensing lifecycles in impressive depth. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete operation for display categories and no reboot/power control for displays.

Resources

Need Help?