media_controlControl media playback on an Android device by sending key commands such as play, pause, stop, next, previous, rewind, and fast forward.
Send a media key: play, pause, play_pause, stop, next, previous, rewind, fast_forward.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| device | 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether this sends a key to a default media session, requires active playback, changes state, or returns errors. It essentially restates the command and its options without explaining behavioral consequences.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a compact list of valid actions. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. However, the optional device parameter and the behavioral effects of sending a media key are not addressed, which leaves some ambiguity for correct invocation on a specific device.
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?
The description adds meaning to the action parameter by listing valid values that are not represented as an enum in the schema. However, it never explains the device parameter or its null default, and with 0% schema description coverage, device semantics are left entirely undocumented.
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 ('Send') with a clear resource ('a media key') and enumerates the valid key actions, making its purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like press or volume controls, but the listed media key names are distinctive enough.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as press, volume_up, or get_media_sessions. The intended context is only implied by the action list, with no exclusions or conditions described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.