Set the Philips TV Ambilight to a fixed RGB color with optional brightness. Provide red, green, blue values (0-255) to change the ambient lighting instantly.
Met l'Ambilight sur une couleur fixe (RVB 0-255), luminosite optionnelle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | Yes | Bleu (0-255) | |
| g | Yes | Vert (0-255) | |
| r | Yes | Rouge (0-255) | |
| brightness | No | Luminosite (0-255) ; par defaut celle de la couleur |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds the fixed-color and optional-brightness behavior, but does not explain side effects like whether this switches modes or requires Ambilight to be on. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 description is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrasing is slightly awkward and lacks a clear imperative verb, but it is compact and efficiently states the action and key parameters.
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 tool with four scalar parameters, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify the relationship to ambilight_mode or whether setting a color also affects the on/off state, leaving a meaningful usage gap.
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 r, g, b, and brightness are already fully documented with ranges. The description's mention of 'RVB 0-255' and 'luminosite optionnelle' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly identifies the resource (Ambilight) and the action: setting it to a fixed RGB color with optional brightness. The phrase 'couleur fixe' helps distinguish this from mode-based or on/off siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.
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 implies it is meant for fixed-color Ambilight settings, which helps rule out ambilight_mode, ambilight_on, and ambilight_off. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.