nvidia-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kodi_lifecycle

Destructive

Start, stop, or restart Kodi; offline recovery or interrupting another app requires explicit permission, and playback actions are refused.

Instructions

Start/stop/restart Kodi. Refuses playback; offline recovery/other-app interruption need explicit permission.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "kodi_lifecycle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`interrupt_other_app`	No
`allow_offline_recovery`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond the schema: playback refusal and the permission gate on offline recovery / cross-app interruption, which an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tightly packed clauses, front-loaded with the action set and zero filler. The second clause is slightly telegraphic ('Refuses playback') but earns its place by encoding constraints.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a destructive lifecycle tool the definition is nearly complete, with the only shortfall being the shallow treatment of the two boolean parameters.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full param burden. It partially compensates by tying 'offline recovery' and 'other-app interruption' to the two boolean flags and noting they need explicit permission, but it never explains what these modes actually do or the effect of the action enum.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description leads with specific verbs (start/stop/restart) applied to a clear resource (Kodi), which is easily distinguished from read-oriented siblings like kodi_status and kodi_read. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the action set is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states a clear 'when-not' ('Refuses playback') and the governing condition for the advanced flags (offline recovery / interrupting another app require explicit permission). It gives operational context but names no concrete alternative tool for those scenarios.

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