Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sonos-ts-mcp

sonos-ts-mcp

by Tommertom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sonos_add_device

Manually add a Sonos device by IP address when SSDP discovery fails due to network restrictions. Device must be on port 1400.

Instructions

Manually add a Sonos device by IP address. Use when SSDP discovery fails due to network restrictions or firewall rules. Device must be network-accessible on port 1400.

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": {
      "ip": "<ip>"
    },
    "name": "sonos_add_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIP address of the Sonos device (e.g., "192.168.1.150")
nameNoOptional friendly name for the device
portNoPort number (default: 1400)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.7

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing configurations), return format, or success/failure indicators. For a state-modifying tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple add-device tool with clear schema, the description covers what, when, and a prerequisite. However, it omits expected outcomes (e.g., success/error responses) and any permissions requirements, leaving some contextual gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (ip, name, port). The tool description adds marginal value by repeating the port default (1400) but does not enhance meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Manually add a Sonos device by IP address,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sonos_discover (SSDP discovery) and sonos_list_devices (listing existing devices).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use when SSDP discovery fails due to network restrictions or firewall rules,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions the prerequisite that the device must be network-accessible on port 1400. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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