power_onTurn on an LG webOS TV remotely via Wake-on-LAN. Uses a saved MAC address or accepts an override; requires the TV's network power-on setting to be enabled.
Wake-on-LAN で TV の電源を入れる。pair_device 時に保存した MAC アドレスを使う（mac パラメータで上書き可）。TV 側で「ネットワーク経由で電源オン」等の設定が有効である必要がある。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mac | No | 送信先 MAC アドレス（省略時は登録済みの値） | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the WOL mechanism, the dependency on a MAC saved during pairing, and a prerequisite TV setting. It could mention failure/error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are described.
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?
Three short, dense sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the MAC behavior and the TV-side prerequisite. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 power-on tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, and parameter behavior. It does not describe error cases such as an unreachable TV, but the core invocation context is adequately specified.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the MAC was saved during pair_device and that the mac parameter overrides that saved value. This goes beyond the schema's '登録済みの値' phrasing.
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 a specific action ('TV の電源を入れる') and the mechanism (Wake-on-LAN), with the resource being the TV. This differentiates it from related siblings like power_off and get_power_state, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does.
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?
It provides clear context: powering on via WOL, using the MAC stored during pair_device, and allowing an override. It also states the required TV-side setting. It does not explicitly compare alternatives, but the intended use case is clear enough given the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.