Lists Tvheadend muxes with scan state and results, optionally filtered by network UUID, to help inspect multiplex configuration and scan status.
List muxes including scan state/result; optionally filter by network UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| filters | No | ||
| network_uuid | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact (results include scan state/result), but says nothing about pagination behavior from limit/start or what the generic 'filters' parameter does, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.
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 clause-plus-clause sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the filter secondary. Efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with four parameters.
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, with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and a flexible 'filters' argument, the description is too thin to let an agent call this confidently beyond the simplest case.
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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains network_uuid. The limit, start, and especially the opaque 'filters' array parameter are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.
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 and resource ('List muxes') and adds scope detail ('including scan state/result'). It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as tvh_list_networks or tvh_list_services, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource name alone.
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 clause 'optionally filter by network UUID' implies the filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for listing muxes in other ways. The usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.