Control a SureFlap cat flap's lock state to unlocked, locked-in, locked-out, or locked both ways using a device ID.
Set the lock state of a SureFlap cat flap
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | Yes | Numeric device ID (from list_devices) | |
| lockState | Yes | Lock state: 0 = unlocked, 1 = locked-in (entry only), 2 = locked-out (exit only), 3 = locked both ways |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions or device connectivity are required, whether the lock state persists across sessions, or what confirmation is returned. For a state-mutating device command, these are meaningful gaps.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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?
The description is too thin for a state-changing device command with no annotations and no output schema. An agent cannot learn from it what a successful call produces, whether the change is immediate or queued, or what errors to expect, leaving the description incomplete relative to the tool's 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the lockState enum values are fully explained in the schema itself (0 = unlocked, 1 = locked-in, etc.). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('lock state of a SureFlap cat flap'), making the operation immediately identifiable. It does not reference any sibling tool, but none of the listed siblings (list_devices, set_led_mode, set_pet_location, etc.) overlap with lock control, so differentiation is largely unnecessary.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond what the schema already states. The only implied usage context is the deviceId reference, which comes from the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.