lms-mcp

Set repeat / shuffle

set_repeat_shuffle

Control playback by setting repeat mode (off, one, all) and shuffle mode (off, songs, albums) for your active player.

Instructions

Set repeat (off/one/all) and/or shuffle (off/songs/albums) for a player.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "set_repeat_shuffle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`player`	No	Player MAC address or exact name. Defaults to LMS_DEFAULT_PLAYER or the only player.
`repeat`	No
`shuffle`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether omitting a parameter preserves the current setting, whether the change is immediate/persistent, or what happens if the player is invalid. The description only names the action without exposing side effects or state-change semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and target resources. Every phrase ('off/one/all', 'off/songs/albums', 'and/or') contributes essential information, and there is no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important behavior unstated, such as defaults when only one parameter is supplied and whether both parameters can be applied together. An agent could guess the basic call, but the description is not fully self-sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with repeat and shuffle having no schema descriptions beyond their enums. The description lists the enum values but does not explain what 'one', 'all', 'songs', or 'albums' mean behaviorally, so it only minimally compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with the imperative 'Set' and names the two specific resources affected: repeat and shuffle for a player, including valid modes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_volume or set_power, which control different player state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as playback_control, or when it should not be used. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and description; no context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server