Sets a PIXOO64 device's display channel to faces, cloud, visualizer, custom, or black screen via a LAN target.
Set Channel/SetIndex, 0=faces, 1=cloud, 2=visualizer, 3=custom, 4=black screen. PIXOO64 Hardware 90/92/96 only. Provide target.hardware for direct LAN use, or resolve it using device discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | ||
| target | No | Optional per-call target override. If omitted, environment variables are used. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does useful work: it discloses the device-family restriction, that index 4 blanks the screen, and how target resolution falls back to environment variables. It omits what happens on unsupported hardware, whether the channel selection persists across power cycles, and any error/return behavior for a mutation call.
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its value table before the hardware constraint. Slightly telegraphic but every clause carries information.
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?
Covers the two things an agent most needs (index meanings, hardware targeting) for a 2-parameter mutation tool with a nested target object. With no output schema and no annotations, it should also say what a successful call returns or changes and how failures surface; that gap keeps it at minimum-plus.
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 50% and the description compensates well for the most important gap: it gives the semantic mapping of every valid index value (0=faces … 4=black screen) that the schema only constrains numerically. It also explains that target.hardware drives direct LAN control, though it does not add to the sub-fields already documented in the schema.
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 (set channel/index) and enumerates all five channel meanings, which no other sibling does. It does not explicitly name the analogous sibling (timegate_select_clock), but the 'PIXOO64 Hardware 90/92/96 only' scope effectively separates it from the TimeGate-family tools.
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?
Firmly bounds usage to PIXOO64 hardware 90/92/96 and tells the caller two ways to supply a target (explicit target.hardware vs. device discovery). It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or pointing at a concrete alternative tool for other hardware.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.