get_current_channelRetrieve the current channel and program details (name, description, start/end times) from an LG webOS TV, or get a notification when no broadcast is being watched.
視聴中のチャンネルと、放送中の番組名・内容・開始/終了時刻を返す。放送視聴中でない場合はその旨を返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | 対象デバイス名または IP。省略時は既定デバイス（--device / WEBOS_DEVICE / devices.json の defaultDevice） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that the operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds useful context about what information is returned and the fallback behavior when not watching broadcast, but it does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., device not found) or any side effects, which are minimal given the read-only nature.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary return value (channel and program) and states the conditional behavior. It is concise and information-dense with no wasted words.
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?
For a read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the expected return values and the edge case of not watching broadcast. It does not describe the exact response format, but given the low complexity and readOnlyHint, this is not a significant gap.
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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter (device), so the schema already documents its meaning and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool returns the current channel and the airing program's name, content, and start/end times. It also specifies the behavior when not watching broadcast. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_current_app, the focus on channel/program is distinct enough for an agent to infer its purpose.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving current viewing status but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like get_current_app or get_program_guide. An agent would need to infer the appropriate context from the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.