Sets an LED strip to a specified RGB color (0-255) or a named color for controlling desktop lighting.
Set LED strip to a specific RGB color (0-255 each) or a named color (red, green, blue, white, purple, cyan, yellow, orange, pink, warm, magenta)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | No | Blue (0-255) | |
| g | No | Green (0-255) | |
| r | No | Red (0-255) | |
| name | No | Named color instead of RGB: red, green, blue, white, purple, cyan, yellow, orange, pink, warm, magenta |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful format context, but it does not explain whether setting color overrides an active pattern/effect or what happens if both RGB and name are supplied.
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?
The definition is a single well-structured sentence with no wasted prose, and it front-loads the action and accepted input formats.
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 simple LED color-setting tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely complete. It leaves minor gaps around parameter interaction and hardware state, but no output schema is needed here.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the RGB range and named-color list with little additional semantic guidance such as mutual exclusivity or default behavior.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: setting an LED strip to RGB or a named color. It is clearly distinct from siblings like led_set_brightness and led_set_pattern, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied by the action, and the description clarifies that RGB or a named color may be used. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose named colors versus RGB, or when to use this tool instead of sibling LED tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.