mcp-server-onkyo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_volume

Adjust the master volume level on a network-connected Onkyo receiver using its 0-100 display scale. Values above the configured safety cap are automatically clamped.

Instructions

Set master volume on the receiver's 0-100 display scale (0.5 steps on newer models). Values above the configured safety cap are clamped.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "level": "<level>"
    },
    "name": "set_volume"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`level`	Yes
`receiver`	No	IP address of the receiver, as returned by discover_receivers. Omit to use the default receiver.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: values above the configured safety cap are clamped, and newer models accept 0.5 steps. However, it omits error behavior, permission/auth requirements, and whether the clamping is silent or reported.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action and scale are front-loaded, with the clamping caveat following immediately after.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key range and clamping behavior. It is nearly complete for a simple setter, missing only auth/permission notes and out-of-range error semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: the receiver parameter is documented in the schema, but the required level parameter has no schema description. The description compensates by defining the level's 0-100 scale and the 0.5-step granularity, adding real meaning beyond the bare number type.

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 ("Set") and resource ("master volume") and adds scale semantics ("receiver's 0-100 display scale"). This clearly separates it from set_mute, set_power, and set_input, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so it sits just below the top tier.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use context and never points to alternatives such as set_mute for temporary silencing. An agent must infer the routing between sibling setters on its own.

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

Deploy Server