Adjust LG webOS TV volume by setting an absolute level from 0 to 100, or stepping it up or down one notch per call.
Set the volume to a level (0-100) or step it up or down. Give exactly one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tv | No | Name of a paired TV. Omit to use the default TV. | |
| step | No | Nudge the volume one step. | |
| level | No | Absolute volume. |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful mutual-exclusivity constraint ('Give exactly one') beyond the schema, but says nothing about failure behavior when the TV is unpaired or unreachable.
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, zero filler, with the core action and the argument rule front-loaded. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.
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 the mutation safety profile. The description is close to sufficient, but a one-clause note on what happens with an invalid target TV would make it fully self-contained.
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 baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds the cross-parameter rule that exactly one of level/step may be provided — a constraint the schema's nullable defaults do not express. That extra constraint earns a step above baseline.
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 and resource ('Set the volume') plus the two accepted modes of setting it, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as set_mute, so it stops 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?
'Give exactly one' tells the agent how to supply arguments, which is real invocation guidance. It says nothing about when to prefer this over set_mute or when a relative step is better than an absolute level, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.