List every light with room, power, brightness, color, and capabilities. Use it to inspect your Philips Hue setup before controlling or automating lights.
List every light with room, power, brightness (0-100), color and capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, while the description adds full-inventory scope, the reported state and metadata, and the 0-100 brightness scale. It provides no details about pagination, snapshot consistency, or bridge errors, though those are less critical for this simple listing operation.
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 front-loads the operation and scope, then lists only useful result attributes. The inline brightness range adds practical detail without introducing filler or unnecessary structure.
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 zero-argument read-only listing with annotations and an output schema, the description provides what is needed to select and invoke it: complete inventory scope and the kind of light state returned. Additional error or pagination details would be optional at this level of complexity.
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?
There are no parameters, so the zero-parameter baseline applies and no argument syntax needs explanation. The wording also correctly confirms that the listing requires no identifier or filter.
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 a specific verb and resource and scopes the operation to every light, distinguishing this inventory listing from get_light, find_light_by_name, and the group or scene listings. Naming room, power, brightness, color, and capabilities further clarifies the information being retrieved.
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 phrase 'every light' establishes a clear use case: obtaining the complete lighting inventory and its state rather than looking up one light. It does not explicitly direct agents to get_light or find_light_by_name for targeted lookups, so alternatives and exclusions remain implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.