alexa_text_commandControl Alexa devices by sending text commands as if spoken aloud. Trigger actions like turning on lights or playing media without using your voice.
Send a text command to Alexa as if you spoke it. Example: "turn on the kitchen lights"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The text command, as if spoken to Alexa | |
| serialNumber | Yes | Serial number of the Echo device |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not disclose that this is a state-mutating action (e.g., 'turn on the kitchen lights'), whether it requires the target Echo to be online/reachable, whether it blocks for a response, or what happens on unrecognized commands. 'As if you spoke it' hints at side effects but leaves the mutation semantics implicit.
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, purpose front-loaded, and the example is the most useful single piece of content in the definition. Nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should ideally say something about the result (success/failure, returned state), and it does not. For a simple two-parameter pass-through tool this is survivable, but a mutating tool with no annotations and no response semantics is only minimally complete.
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 parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The example ('turn on the kitchen lights') illustrates the expected command format, which is a modest addition over the schema's 'as if spoken to Alexa', but it adds no syntax, length, or format constraints.
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 ('send a text command to Alexa as if you spoke it') and reinforces it with a concrete example utterance. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like alexa_speak, alexa_query_device, or alexa_announce, which an agent would have to inspect separately to disambiguate.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many siblings. With alexa_speak, alexa_query_device, and alexa_execute_routine all plausibly applicable, the description gives the agent nothing to route on beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.