Push a JSON deck to the paired TV, replacing the current display. Use it to send composed information decks for on-screen viewing.
Push a deck to the paired TV. deck is the JSON document (object or JSON string) in the
format from cdeck_schema(). Replaces whatever the TV is showing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck | Yes | ||
| name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation replaces whatever the TV is showing, but it omits permissions, error behavior if unpaired, and validation details.
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?
Two tightly written sentences front-load the action and then cover the key input format and overwrite behavior. There is no redundant or 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 push operation with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation, required input format, target, and overwrite effect. The main remaining gap is the undocumented optional name parameter and unpaired-TV behavior.
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?
The required deck parameter is explained as an object or JSON string using the cdeck_schema() format, which adds real value over the empty schema descriptions. However, the optional name parameter is not described at all despite 0% schema description coverage.
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 uses the specific verb "Push" with the resource "deck" and target "paired TV," making the action unambiguous. Referencing cdeck_schema() further distinguishes it from schema/list/status siblings.
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?
It gives clear context: the deck must be in the format from cdeck_schema() and is pushed to the paired TV. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisite is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.