Open an app on an LG webOS TV by title or ID. Omit the TV to use the default; ambiguous names return matching options.
Open an app. Names are matched loosely; ambiguous names list the options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tv | No | Name of a paired TV. Omit to use the default TV. | |
| name | Yes | App title or id, e.g. 'Netflix' or 'prime'. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely behavioral detail beyond that: loose name matching and the fact that ambiguous names return a list of options instead of launching. It omits what happens on a completely unmatched name, so not a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed immediately by the one non-obvious behavioral caveat. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The ambiguity-handling note covers the main failure mode an agent would hit; only the unknown-name case is left unstated.
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%, so the schema already documents both 'name' and 'tv' (including the default-TV behavior). The description nonetheless adds matching semantics for 'name' – loose matching and ambiguity resolution – which the schema does not convey.
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 ('Open an app'), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_apps and play_youtube. It does not, however, explicitly name any alternative action tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose – the agent infers it should call this to launch rather than enumerate apps. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., play_youtube for content playback), so guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.