Retrieve the current values and metadata of a Tvheadend object by UUID, including advanced expert fields. Use it to inspect a single DVR, EPG, tuner, network, mux, service, or channel entry.
Inspect one object's current values and metadata, including advanced/expert fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | 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 carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful detail that the response includes advanced/expert fields not shown in normal listings, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. an unknown uuid) or how the open-world lookup is resolved.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is lean rather than wasteful; the issue is missing content, not excess verbiage.
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, and the shape (a single uuid in, one object out) is simple. Still, the meaning of 'node' and the uuid format are unresolved, which leaves an agent guessing about applicability before calling.
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 single uuid parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain it at all – not what it identifies, nor whether it is a node UUID versus some other identifier. Given low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate and does not.
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?
It has a specific verb ('Inspect') and states the intent (current values and metadata), but it never says what kind of object a 'node' is. With siblings covering channels, muxes, networks, services and DVR rules, an agent cannot tell from the description whether this applies to all of them or a subset.
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 description gives no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the natural alternatives, such as tvh_list_* for enumerating entities or tvh_api_read for raw access. The choice between this and tvh_update_node or tvh_delete_node is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.