Plays all songs and videos from a folder defined in midia.json through VLC on your PC, either in order or shuffled, and can loop playback.
Toca no VLC do PC as músicas e vídeos de uma pasta listada em midia.json (pelo nome), em ordem ou aleatório, em loop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pasta | Yes | Nome da pasta como está em midia.json. | |
| aleatorio | No | Embaralhar a ordem. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, closed-world), so the description only needs to add playback-specific behavior, and it does: the target app is VLC on the PC, playback loops, and order vs shuffle is selectable. It does not say what happens to media already playing, whether VLC must be running, or what the call returns, which are the gaps an agent would actually hit.
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 that front-loads the action (toca no VLC) and then the scope. Every clause carries information; it could only be improved by adding a short clause on prerequisites or failure behavior rather than by cutting anything.
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 two-parameter control tool with no output schema, the description covers what is played, where, and with what ordering or looping, which is close to sufficient. It omits what an agent most needs before calling: whether existing playback is interrupted, what happens if the folder is missing from midia.json, and whether the call returns before or after playback starts.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates them at a high level ('pelo nome' for pasta, 'em ordem ou aleatório' for aleatorio). It adds no exact-match rules, case sensitivity, or error behavior for an unknown folder name, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource chain: it starts playback in VLC of the songs and videos of one folder, identified by name from midia.json. That VLC/local-folder scope implicitly separates it from the sibling abrir_soundcloud, but it never names a sibling or states the contrast explicitly, 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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer a prerequisite (the folder must already be listed in midia.json) and that this is the way to start sequential or shuffled playback. There is no statement of when not to use it, nor any pointer to controle_midia or midia_status for pausing, skipping, or inspecting state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.