hdhomerun_get_lineup_statusReturns the HDHomeRun lineup scan status, showing whether a channel scan is active, available sources, and current progress or found channel counts.
GET /lineup_status.json — scan state.
Idle: {ScanInProgress, ScanPossible, Source, SourceList}. Scanning: {ScanInProgress:1, Progress, Found}.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the two response modes (idle vs scanning) and which fields appear in each, which the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying what the agent should do with those states.
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?
Very short and front-loaded with the endpoint, which is good, but the brace-notation state listing is dense jargon that reads like a schema fragment rather than prose. Efficient, yet not maximally scannable.
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 values need no explanation here, and the two-state summary plus field names cover the essentials. Missing is any framing of why an agent would fetch scan status or how it relates to starting/aborting a scan.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-related to document and the description correctly spends no words on it.
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 the endpoint (GET /lineup_status.json) and characterizes the payload as 'scan state,' which is a specific enough verb+resource. It does not distinguish this from closely related siblings like hdhomerun_get_lineup, hdhomerun_start_scan, or hdhomerun_abort_scan, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The idle/scanning state enumeration implies a polling use case, but that is inference rather than instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.