Adds a virtual component (boolean, number, text, enum, button, or group) to a Shelly device, with optional config and ID, returning the new component ID.
Add a virtual component of type (boolean/number/text/enum/button/group).
Optional config and id (200-299). Returns the new component id. Audit-logged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| config | No | ||
| device | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only supply idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: the operation is audit-logged, and it returns the new component id. It does not explain what happens on an id collision, whether the component persists across reboots, or what config keys imply.
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?
Three terse sentences with zero filler; the core action and its type values are front-loaded, and the return value and audit-logging notes are appropriately placed at the end.
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?
An output schema exists, so return details need not be spelled out, though the description helpfully mentions the returned id. For a mutating, audit-logged tool on a required 'device' target, the description still leaves the device argument and config semantics unaddressed relative to the 0% schema coverage.
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 fully documents the 'type' values and gives a range for 'id', but 'config' is only named without any key-level meaning and 'device' — a required parameter — is never explained at all, leaving a notable gap.
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 and resource ('Add a virtual component') and enumerates the valid component types (boolean/number/text/enum/button/group), which goes well beyond restating the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like shelly_virtual_delete or shelly_virtual_list, but the verb makes the direction of the operation 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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Add' and by the listed type values, and the 200-299 id range hints at how components should be numbered. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus shelly_virtual_list/shelly_virtual_delete, no note on device scoping, and no prerequisite guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.