Lists available PC microphones and identifies which device the listen command uses, so you can verify voice input routing.
Show the PC microphones and which one listen uses.
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' implies a read-only listing, and the description usefully states that it reports the microphone used by `listen`, but it does not describe output format, permissions, or whether any state changes occur.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted wording. The main purpose is front-loaded immediately.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what is listed and highlights the `listen`-related selection. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying whether all microphones are returned or only available/selectable ones.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and no contradictory or confusing parameter information is present.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: showing PC microphones. It also clarifies a scope detail by saying which microphone `listen` uses, which helps distinguish it from the speaker-related sibling.
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?
Usage is implied by the mention of `listen`, suggesting this is useful before choosing or checking the active microphone. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_devices or how to act on the result.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.