list_inputsLists HDMI and other external inputs on LG webOS TVs, returning IDs, labels, and connection status so you can pass the correct ID to switch_input.
HDMI などの外部入力の ID・ラベル・接続状態を返す。switch_input にはこの id を渡す。
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what is returned (ID, label, connection status) and how the result interacts with switch_input. It does not mention error conditions or response format, but for a simple read-only list tool the annotation plus return-field disclosure is sufficient.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then immediately provides a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or verbose content.
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 list tool with one optional parameter fully covered by the schema and no output schema, the description is complete. It names the returned fields and explains how the returned ID is consumed by switch_input, giving the agent everything needed to call and use the result correctly.
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 single optional device parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, which is acceptable given the high coverage and baseline of 3.
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 ID, label, and connection status of external inputs such as HDMI. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly linking the returned ID to switch_input, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool is for.
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 clearly tells the agent to use this tool to obtain an ID for switch_input, providing a concrete usage context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the switch_input reference is strong implicit guidance for when this tool is relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.