switch_inputChange your LG TV's active external input by specifying an input ID like HDMI_1 or HDMI_2, letting you select the correct source for your device.
外部入力を切り替える（例: HDMI_1, HDMI_2）。
| 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） | |
| inputId | Yes | 入力 ID（list_inputs の id） |
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 must disclose behavior, but it only states the action. It does not explain effects on device state, error handling for invalid input IDs, or conditions like the device being powered on.
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, concise sentence that is easy to parse. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it could include a bit more context without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention success/failure behavior, how to verify the switch, or explicitly instruct to obtain inputId from list_inputs (though the schema hints at it).
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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The example clarifies the format of inputId but that is already covered by the schema's reference to list_inputs.
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 ('switch') and resource ('external input') with concrete examples (HDMI_1, HDMI_2), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_inputs or set_channel, but the resource type is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to call list_inputs first, nor any exclusions for other input-switching tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.