Toggles VLC playback between paused and playing, letting you pause or resume media through AI client commands.
Toggle VLC playback between paused and playing.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "vlc_pause"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description usefully explains the reason: the operation toggles, so a second call reverts the state. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the flags. It does not describe the no-media edge case or what feedback the caller gets, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
One sentence, no filler, with the toggle semantics front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 no-parameter, non-idempotent toggle with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics. The only missing piece an agent might want is the behavior when no media is loaded or VLC is idle.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Its silence on parameters is appropriate rather than a gap.
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 names a specific resource (VLC playback) and a specific action (toggle pause/play), which is unambiguous on its face. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling vlc_play, which the name 'pause' could be confused with, so an agent must still infer that vlc_play is the non-toggling resume path.
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 word 'toggle' implies the intended usage context (flip between two states), which is adequate but only implicit. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over vlc_play or what happens if nothing is currently playing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.