hdhomerun_get_discoverRetrieves an HDHomeRun tuner’s discovery details—friendly name, model, firmware, device ID, auth, base URL, lineup URL, and tuner count—for setup and diagnostics.
GET /discover.json — FriendlyName/ModelNumber/FirmwareVersion/DeviceID/ DeviceAuth/BaseURL/LineupURL/TunerCount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond re-listing return fields, which the output schema already provides.
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?
It is short and free of padding, but front-loads a raw endpoint path and a truncated field list instead of a purpose statement. Brevity here comes at the cost of comprehension rather than from efficiency.
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?
Output schema and annotations handle returns and safety, so those gaps are acceptable. What is missing is the core question an agent asks first: what this endpoint is for and when to pick it over the other discover 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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Nothing in the text misleads about inputs.
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 is an HTTP path plus a slash-separated list of field names, not a statement of what the tool does. An agent must infer 'returns device identification/lineup info' from the field names alone, and nothing distinguishes it from hdhomerun_discover_local_broadcast, hdhomerun_discover_local_targeted, or hdhomerun_discover_cloud.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the four discovery siblings that clearly compete with this tool. The only implicit signal is the endpoint path, which an agent would have to decode on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.