Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-onkyo

mcp-server-onkyo

by SDNick484
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

discover_receivers

Find Onkyo, Integra, and Pioneer AV receivers on your local network and return each receiver's IP address, model, eISCP port, and MAC address for network control.

Instructions

Find Onkyo/Integra/Pioneer receivers on the local network. Returns each receiver's IP address, model, eISCP port and MAC address.

Tool call template

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": "discover_receivers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (IP, model, eISCP port, MAC), which is useful, but says nothing about scan duration/latency, network-access requirements, or that it is a safe read-only operation. Adequate but with real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core action (finding receivers on the local network) is front-loaded ahead of the return-value detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless discovery tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape sufficiently; the return-value sentence is mildly redundant given the output schema. The main omission is behavioral context (scan time, permissions) that annotations would otherwise supply.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline this dimension starts at 4. There is no syntax or argument meaning the description could add, and it does not attempt to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (Onkyo/Integra/Pioneer receivers on the local network), plus the identifying fields returned. It is clearly a discovery tool rather than a control tool, so it is distinguishable from the get_status/set_* siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you discover receivers before configuring them, but the description names no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools