Read an Echo speaker or soundbar's equalizer settings—bass, midrange, and treble levels in dB—by specifying the Alexa device name or serial number.
Read an Echo speaker or soundbar’s equalizer: bass, mid(range) and treble, in dB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | An Alexa device: its name as alexa_list_devices shows it (case-insensitive; a unique part of the name works) or its serial number. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the shape and units of the reading (bass, mid, treble in dB), which matters because there is no output schema — this is genuine added context rather than repetition.
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?
A single compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the returned fields trailing; nothing is redundant or padded.
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 one-param read with readOnly/openWorld annotations and a fully described parameter, the definition covers the essentials and compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned bands. It lacks only minor operational context such as error/offline 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'device' parameter is fully documented there (name or serial, case-insensitive, partial match). The description only adds that the target is an Echo speaker or soundbar, a marginal widening beyond the schema's 'An Alexa device', so the 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 a specific verb and resource ('Read ... equalizer') and even enumerates the returned bands with units (bass, mid, treble in dB). It is distinguishable from alexa_set_equalizer by the 'Read' verb, but it never explicitly names or excludes a sibling, so it stops just short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. device online/authenticated), and no mention of the counterpart tool alexa_set_equalizer for modifying the same settings. The read-vs-write intent is only implicit in the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.