set_sound_outputSwitch the audio output destination on an LG webOS TV to TV speaker, optical, ARC, Bluetooth soundbar, headphone, or external speaker by specifying the output ID.
音声出力先を切り替える。
| 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） | |
| output | Yes | 出力先 ID（例: tv_speaker, external_optical, external_arc, bt_soundbar, headphone, tv_external_speaker） |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the output destination is switched; it does not mention whether the change persists, whether a specific device must be reachable, what happens with invalid output IDs, or whether there are side effects on currently playing media.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler or extraneous detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it does largely restate the title's core concept.
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 tool is low-complexity and both parameters are fully described in the schema, so an agent can construct a valid invocation using the structured data alone. However, the lack of an output schema and any behavioral/usage context leaves gaps around result expectations and error handling, making the overall context only adequate rather than complete.
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%; the output property lists concrete example values and the device property documents default-device fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it correctly lands at the baseline 3 rather than compensating for any schema gaps.
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 concrete action and resource: '音声出力先を切り替える' (switch the audio output destination). This makes the tool's intent clear and distinguishes it from read-style siblings like get_sound_output, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sound_output, set_default_device, list_devices, or the discovery commands. No prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.