Lists EPG source channels, module IDs, and existing Tvheadend channel mappings so you can review available sources and verify mappings before configuration.
List EPG source channels, module IDs and existing Tvheadend channel mappings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| start | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds that results include module IDs and existing mappings (useful scoping context), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or how the open-world lookup behaves when EPG sources are unreachable.
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; the resource list leads. It is efficiently sized, though that efficiency comes partly from omitting needed detail rather than from tight wording.
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. However, for a paginated list tool with two undocumented parameters and no stated usage conditions, the description leaves meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.
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% for both parameters: 'limit' and 'start' carry only types and defaults, with no indication that they are pagination controls. The description never mentions them, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap and the agent has no stated semantics for either parameter.
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?
Clear verb 'List' plus the concrete resources returned: EPG source channels, module IDs and existing channel mappings. An agent can tell this apart from tvh_search_epg or tvh_epg_coverage, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related tvh_list_epg_modules or tvh_get_epg_config.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as tvh_list_epg_modules or tvh_assign_epg_sources. The agent must infer the call context from the sibling list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.