Turn an Onkyo AV receiver's main zone on or put it into standby.
Turn the main zone on, or put it into standby.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| on | Yes | ||
| receiver | No | IP address of the receiver, as returned by discover_receivers. Omit to use the default receiver. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies that 'off' means standby rather than a hard power-off, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about side effects on other zones, permission requirements, or error behavior for an unreachable receiver.
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, stating both states of the toggle. Efficient, though it is arguably terse given the missing behavioral detail elsewhere.
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, and the schema covers the receiver parameter. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description covers the state semantics but omits side effects and error/precondition behavior, leaving it only minimally sufficient.
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 50%: the 'receiver' parameter is documented in the schema (including the discover_receivers reference and default behavior), but the required 'on' parameter has no schema description. The description compensates partially by establishing that true = on and false = standby, so the required flag's meaning is recoverable. Baseline 3 fits.
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 verb (turn on / put into standby) and resource scope (the main zone), making the tool's job clear. It maps the boolean 'on' to the two states, so an agent understands the effect. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like get_status or set_volume, but the power semantics are unambiguous.
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 name and description (use this to change power state of the main zone), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_status for reading power state. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.