Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Shipvo

by io.github.shipvo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

set_setting

Change one system setting, as a person would in the phone's Settings screen. The app sees it through Appearance (dark_mode), PixelRatio.getFontScale (font_size), AccessibilityInfo (bold_text, reduce_motion), I18nManager (rtl) and Intl (language). Setting language to ar turns rtl on; en and fr turn it off. Fails with unknown_setting for a key that does not exist and bad_value for a value it does not take. Logged in device_log as simulated.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "session": "<session>",
      "key": "<key>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "set_setting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesdark_mode, font_size, bold_text, reduce_motion, language or rtl
valueYestrue or false for switches; small, default, large or largest for font_size; en, fr or ar for language
sessionYesSession from open_app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / value / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / value / type
      Added value: +[
+  "boolean",
+  "string"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the observable side effects across Appearance, AccessibilityInfo, I18nManager and Intl, the cross-key effect that setting language to ar enables rtl, the two error identifiers, and that the action is recorded in device_log as simulated. It does not say whether the change persists across sessions or is reversible.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by effects, then failure modes. The middle sentence is dense and stacks five framework/key pairs, but each fact is substantive rather than padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, errors, and logging. The remaining gap is what the caller gets back on success (confirmation or new state), which is left implicit.

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

Parameters4/5

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 meaning the schema does not: the app-visible effect of each key and the coupling between language and rtl. That cross-parameter behavior is genuinely useful beyond the field-level enum hints in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Change one system setting" gives a specific verb and a scoped resource, and the enumeration of keys (dark_mode, font_size, bold_text, reduce_motion, rtl, language) makes the domain concrete. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_settings as the read counterpart, so the boundary is inferable but not stated.

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 phrase "as a person would in the phone's Settings screen" implies the legitimate context for use, and the error codes hint at failure modes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of get_settings as the alternative for reading values.

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

All Shipvo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources