Retrieve selectable options for a Tvheadend field by UUID, including static or API-backed enums such as networks, LNB types, and switches, to populate configuration choices.
Resolve a field's static or API-backed enum: networks, LNB types, switches, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | ||
| field | Yes |
| 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait — that some enums are static while others are API-backed — which explains variability in results. It says nothing further about rate limits, freshness, or failure modes for the API-backed case.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though it is arguably too terse given the unresolved uuid/field semantics.
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 needn't be described, but the input side is underspecified: with 0% schema coverage, the description should have clarified what uuid identifies and what 'field' accepts. Adequate only at minimum-viable level.
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 0% and neither parameter is described in the description text; the examples hint at what 'field' values look like but do not bind it to a known enumeration or explain what 'uuid' refers to. The agent has no reliable way to populate required arguments without guessing.
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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('a field's static or API-backed enum') and gives concrete examples (networks, LNB types, switches). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like tvh_network_types or tvh_get_schema, which appear to serve overlapping enum/schema purposes.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as tvh_network_types or tvh_get_schema, and no stated prerequisites. The agent has no idea what the 'uuid' must identify (which entity) before calling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.