Connects a paired Bluetooth device using its MAC address or name, letting you activate headphones, speakers, or other peripherals from desktop automation.
Connect to a paired bluetooth device by MAC address or name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | MAC address (e.g. AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the identifier flexibility, and says nothing about what happens on failure (device unpaired, adapter off) or whether an existing connection is replaced — useful context that is missing.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The identifying detail (MAC or name) arrives exactly where the agent needs it before calling.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the mutation profile, the description supplies what is needed: the action, the target, and the accepted identifier forms. Failure behavior would be nice but is not essential to call it correctly.
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 would be 3, but the description adds genuinely new information: the device may be given by name as well as MAC address, which the schema does not document. The mismatch between the schema's MAC-only wording and the description's 'or name' creates mild ambiguity about accepted formats.
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 (connect) and resource (paired bluetooth device) plus the accepted identifier forms, so it is immediately distinguishable from disconnect_bluetooth and toggle_bluetooth. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous.
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?
'Paired bluetooth device' is the only usage constraint and it is stated obliquely as a precondition rather than as guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_bluetooth_devices (to find the device) or get_bluetooth_status (to verify), so the agent must infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.