Change the active input on an LG webOS TV using a label or id, like HDMI 2 or PS5. Names are matched loosely, and a paired TV can be targeted.
Switch to an input. Names are matched loosely.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tv | No | Name of a paired TV. Omit to use the default TV. | |
| name | Yes | Input label or id, e.g. 'HDMI 2' or 'PS5'. |
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, carrying the safety profile. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations: names are matched loosely, which affects invocation success. It does not disclose side effects of switching or handling of invalid names.
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, with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough to leave gaps that concise structure cannot excuse.
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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a state-changing tool with a loosely-matched identifier, the description omits what happens on ambiguous or failed matches and how it relates to list_inputs.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both the name and tv parameters are already documented (including the 'HDMI 2'/'PS5' example and the default-TV behavior), setting the baseline at 3. 'Names are matched loosely' adds a small amount of matching semantics to the name parameter but nothing beyond that.
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 ('Switch to an input'), so an agent immediately knows this changes the active input. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_inputs, which handles the same resource, leaving the switch-vs-list distinction to inference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_inputs for discovering valid names. The only sentence beyond the purpose is a matching note, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.