Triggers SAT>IP server discovery in Tvheadend to locate available network tuners. Use it to populate discovered SAT>IP devices before configuring DVB networks and muxes.
Trigger Tvheadend's SAT>IP server discovery. Requires SAT>IP client support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a prerequisite but never explains what the discovery actually does on the server or why it is flagged destructive (e.g., whether it persists discovered devices/muxes), leaving a meaningful gap for a mutation-flagged tool.
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?
Two tight sentences, with the action front-loaded before the prerequisite. No wasted words, though so little is said that low verbosity borders on under-specification.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a tool flagged destructive and open-world, the definition omits what the discovery changes on the server and how the dry_run option interacts with that, leaving the agent under-informed about consequences.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain the single 'dry_run' parameter, which it does not mention at all. An agent can guess dry_run semantics, but nothing in the definition confirms whether it suppresses actual state changes.
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?
States a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('Tvheadend's SAT>IP server discovery'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, tvh_scan_networks, which also performs discovery-like activity.
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 prerequisite 'Requires SAT>IP client support' is stated, which is a useful gating condition. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus tvh_scan_networks or tvh_diagnose_network, and no note on expected prerequisites such as configured networks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.