tv_list_appsLists apps installed from the TV's built-in catalog with IDs and running status; optionally probes the TV again instead of using cached results.
Apps from the built-in catalog that are installed on this TV, with their IDs and whether they are running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No | Probe the TV again instead of using the cached list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that results come from the built-in catalog and include running state, but it omits the caching behavior that the optional refresh parameter implies — a notable omission given the tool may return stale data.
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?
One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It reads as a fragment, but every clause (catalog source, IDs, running state) carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing return values and does so adequately — installed apps, their IDs, and running status. Only the staleness/caching caveat and a routing hint toward tv_launch_app are missing for a fully self-sufficient definition.
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 100% and the single optional 'refresh' parameter is already documented as re-probing versus using the cache. The description adds nothing about this parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States the specific resource (apps from the built-in catalog installed on this TV) and what is returned (IDs and running state), which clearly separates it from tv_launch_app or tv_status. The listing verb is implied rather than stated, and 'built-in catalog' scoping is a useful differentiator.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as tv_launch_app (e.g. 'use this first to obtain an app ID for launch'), and no mention of when to prefer the cache versus re-probing. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.