Control a Victron VE.Bus inverter by switching its mode between on, off, charger-only, and inverter-only. Requires confirmation before applying changes.
Set VE.Bus inverter mode (on, off, charger_only, inverter_only).
Requires confirmation for write operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| instance | No | ||
| confirmed | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, but it omits consequences of mode changes, reversibility, permissions, and failure behavior when confirmation is absent.
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 tightly worded sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.
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 annotations, 0% schema descriptions, and three parameters, the definition leaves key invocation details missing: the meaning of instance and the fact that the default confirmed=false may block the write. Although an output schema exists, the input-side gaps make this incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the required mode values and implies the confirmed parameter's purpose, but it provides no meaning for the instance parameter and does not explain that confirmed defaults to false.
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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('VE.Bus inverter mode'), and enumerates the four allowed mode values. This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_inverter_status and other set_* tools that target charge current or SOC.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no when-not conditions. The confirmation note is a prerequisite for invocation rather than a usage discriminator; an agent can infer usage only from the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.