Adjusts TV or soundbar volume through the Xbox console's HDMI-CEC by sending volume up, volume down, or mute commands.
Adjusts TV or soundbar volume via the console's HDMI-CEC: 'volume_up', 'volume_down', or 'mute'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | Target IP address (optional if saved in config). | |
| command | Yes | Volume action: 'volume_up', 'volume_down', or 'mute'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the HDMI-CEC mechanism and that it targets TV or soundbar volume, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, reversibility, or whether the console must be powered on.
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?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence that names the action, mechanism, target devices, and allowed command values with no wasted text.
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 simple two-parameter volume command with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. The remaining gap is that it does not state prerequisites like HDMI-CEC configuration, but the mechanism is at least identified.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both the optional IP and required command are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the command values but adds no extra meaning such as IP fallback behavior or command-specific effects.
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 states a specific verb and resource: adjusts TV or soundbar volume through the console's HDMI-CEC. It enumerates the three supported volume commands, making the tool's scope clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like xbox_media and xbox_button.
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 description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as HDMI-CEC being enabled or the console being reachable. It relies entirely on the agent inferring usage from the stated purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.