tv_list_tvsRetrieve all configured smart TVs, including each TV's name, platform, IP address, and default status. Use it to see available TVs before sending control commands.
List all configured TVs with name, platform, IP, and default status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2v0.3.0v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe, read-only enumeration and names the returned fields, but adds nothing about ordering, scoping, or side effects. For a zero-parameter listing tool the risk surface is small, so this is adequate rather than rich.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, scope, and returned fields all appear in one clause. Nothing is wasted.
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-value detail does not need to live in the description, and the tool has no inputs to explain. The only shortfall is the absence of routing guidance against the many sibling TV tools.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter 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 (List) and resource (configured TVs) and enumerates the fields returned (name, platform, IP, default status). The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling read tools like tv_status or tv_state.
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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as tv_status or tv_state, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the discovery/enumeration call from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.