List all accessible Tvheadend channels, including disabled ones, with their service and EPG mappings. Supports pagination and filters to inspect channel configuration.
List all accessible channels, including disabled ones, with service and EPG mappings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| filters | 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — disabled channels are included and mappings are returned — but says nothing about pagination limits or how large the result may be for an openWorld read.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the result scope; nothing is wasted. It is perhaps slightly too terse given the undocumented parameters, but structurally sound.
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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 3-parameter paginated list tool with zero schema documentation, the omission of pagination and filter semantics leaves it only adequate.
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 the description says nothing about limit, start, or filters. For a paginated list tool, failing to explain pagination or the filter object shape leaves the agent guessing at the most consequential parameters.
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?
Specific verb (list) and resource (channels) with meaningful scope qualifiers: includes disabled channels and returns service/EPG mappings. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like tvh_list_services or tvh_list_channel_tags, but it never names them or states the boundary explicitly.
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 call this versus alternatives (e.g., filtering via tvh_search_epg, or listing services with tvh_list_services). The agent must infer usage from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.