insert_textEnter a string into the focused text field on an LG webOS TV. Optionally send Enter to confirm or replace existing input.
TV 上でフォーカスされているテキストフィールド（検索欄など）に文字列を入力する。入力欄が表示されていないと失敗する。enter=true で入力後に確定する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | 入力する文字列 | |
| enter | No | 入力後に Enter を送る。既定 false | |
| 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） | |
| replace | No | 既存の入力内容を置き換える。既定 false（末尾に追記） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a failure condition (no input field displayed), the default append behavior via replace=false, and the enter behavior. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, whether it clears existing text by default, or what happens on failure. The replace parameter is described in the schema, so the description adds only the failure condition and enter behavior.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core action and failure condition, and includes the enter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, failure condition, and the enter option. It could mention the default append behavior more explicitly, but the schema already covers replace. The main missing context is what happens when the input field is not focused, but the description already states it fails.
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context for enter (confirm after input) and replace (replace vs append), but these are also in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 action (input text into the focused text field on TV), the target resource (focused text field such as search box), and a key failure condition (fails if input field is not displayed). It is distinct from siblings like delete_text and send_key.
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 when to use it: when a text field is focused on the TV. It also states a precondition (input field must be displayed) and mentions the enter option for confirming input. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_text or send_key, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.