Lists discovered TV services including disabled and unverified ones, showing encryption and mapping details. Supports pagination and filtering by mux UUID.
List discovered services including disabled/unverified ones, encryption and mappings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| filters | No | ||
| mux_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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description earns credit for disclosing that disabled and unverified services are included, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about pagination defaults or filter behavior, which matter for a list tool with limit/start parameters.
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. It is efficient, though slightly terse for a tool with four undocumented 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 described. But with 0% parameter documentation and no guidance relative to the many sibling listing/mapping tools, an agent cannot confidently decide how to page, filter, or scope the call.
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% across four parameters (limit, start, filters, mux_uuid), and the description does not compensate: it never mentions pagination, filtering, or mux scoping. The word 'discovered' hints at the domain but gives no guidance on how to constrain the listing.
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 (services) and adds scope detail that separates it from generic listing: disabled/unverified entries, encryption, and mappings are included. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like tvh_map_services or tvh_assign_services.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as tvh_map_services, tvh_assign_services, or the other tvh_list_* tools. The listing verb implies a read/inspection use, but no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.