Lists DVR recordings from Tvheadend, including upcoming and active ones, filtered by state and paginated with total/start so you can review schedules and finished or failed entries.
List DVR entries: upcoming includes active recordings; paginate using total/start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| state | No | all | |
| 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/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: how the 'upcoming' state behaves (includes active recordings) and how pagination works via total/start. It omits nothing safety-critical for a read tool, though it doesn't mention ordering or result size behavior.
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 compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded followed by two useful behavioral notes; nothing is wasted. The 'total/start' phrasing is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, keeping it off a 5.
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 (covering return values) and annotations cover the safety profile, so the main remaining burden is parameter semantics. The description handles state and pagination but leaves limit and filters unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a 4-parameter list tool.
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 must carry all parameter meaning. It clarifies 'state=upcoming' and points to start/total for pagination, but leaves limit and especially the opaque 'filters' parameter (arbitrary object array) completely unexplained, so it only partially compensates.
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 (List) and resource (DVR entries), making it clear this is a read/list operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like tvh_list_dvr_rules or tvh_list_dvr_profiles, and 'DVR entries' is slightly ambiguous against those sibling resources, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus tvh_recording_action or tvh_schedule_recording, nor any mention of prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent content is a semantic note that the 'upcoming' state includes active recordings, which explains a filter value but not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.