pair_deviceConnect to a webOS TV by IP and initiate pairing. Waits for the user to approve the dialog on the TV screen, then saves the client key for future authenticated commands.
指定した IP の TV に接続してペアリングする。TV 画面に表示される承認ダイアログでユーザーが「はい」を選ぶまで待機し、client-key を保存する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | TV の IP アドレスまたはホスト名 | |
| name | No | 保存する表示名（例: living-room）。省略時は host | |
| makeDefault | No | 既定デバイスにするか |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the interactive approval dialog and the saving of client-key, but it does not disclose what happens if the user rejects, whether the operation can block indefinitely, or whether existing pairings are overwritten.
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 dense sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. Its length is reasonable, though splitting the wait/approval detail into a separate sentence would improve scannability.
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?
The description covers the essential interaction (user must approve on the TV) and the outcome (client-key saved). It omits return value, timeout/rejection behavior, and prerequisites, which matters because there is no output schema or annotations to fill those gaps.
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 host, name, and makeDefault. The tool description adds general context about client-key storage but no per-parameter 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 states a specific action: connect to a TV at a given IP, pair it, wait for user approval, and save the client-key. This clearly distinguishes pair_device from sibling tools like list_devices or remove_device, which manage already-known devices.
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 described workflow ('connect to the TV at the specified IP and pair') implies when to use it but does not state prerequisites such as discovering the TV first or exclude alternatives such as remove_device or set_default_device. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.