Lists Tvheadend networks with UUIDs, delivery systems, enabled state, scan queues, and counts to support inspection and management of DVR tuner network configuration.
List networks with UUID, delivery system, enabled state, scan queue and counts.
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only a field list, which largely duplicates the output schema, and says nothing about pagination behavior across a potentially large network list.
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. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though the saved space is not reinvested in the missing parameter guidance.
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 annotations cover safety. However, for a paginated, filterable list tool with three undocumented parameters, the description leaves a real operational gap around how to page and filter.
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?
All three parameters (limit, start, filters) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them — yet it never mentions pagination or the filters array format. Only 'list networks' hints at collection semantics; a caller has no idea how to page or filter.
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 networks') and enumerates the fields returned (UUID, delivery system, enabled state, scan queue, counts). It is distinguishable from tvh_create_network and tvh_scan_networks by the read verb, but it never explicitly contrasts with read-oriented siblings such as tvh_diagnose_network or tvh_network_types.
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 choose this over tvh_diagnose_network (single-network detail), tvh_network_types (type catalog) or tvh_scan_networks. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb, with no exclusions or preconditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.