get_system_infoRetrieve LG webOS TV system details, including model name and webOS version, to verify device identity and check compatibility.
TV のモデル名・webOS バージョン等を返す。
| 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 communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful scope by naming model name and webOS version, but it does not disclose any behavioral details beyond that, such as return shape or device-connectivity requirements.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler. Every word contributes to describing what the tool returns.
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 simple read-only system-info tool with one fully documented optional parameterable parameter and a readOnlyHint, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is the vague trailing '等' (etc.), which leaves the full set of return fields unspecified.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional device parameter, so the schema fully documents its meaning and default resolution. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the TV model name and webOS version. This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling control and query tools, even without naming an alternative.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_settings or get_power_state. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the selection criteria entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.