Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-gtv

mcp-gtv

by kud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gtv_launch_app

Launch applications on a Google TV device by specifying an app catalog name, ID, or a deep-link URI.

Instructions

Launch an app on the current device by catalog name/id (e.g. netflix, youtube) or a raw deep-link URI.

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": {
      "app": "<app>"
    },
    "name": "gtv_launch_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appYesApp catalog name/id or a deep-link URI

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It minimally describes the input format but omits behaviors like error handling (e.g., what if app not found?), permissions, or side effects (e.g., does it change focus?). For an action tool, this lack of behavioral detail impairs correct invocation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence with clear structure: action, target, input format. No unnecessary words, front-loads the core functionality.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simple interface (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the input and action adequately. However, it lacks details on expected outcomes, error states, or device requirements, leaving gaps in completeness for an agent to handle edge cases.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The tool description adds examples (netflix, youtube) and clarifies the dual nature (catalog name vs. deep-link URI), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema field description. However, it does not introduce new parameter details.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Launch an app on the current device'. It specifies input types with examples (catalog name/id like netflix, or deep-link URI), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools which handle device listing, key sending, device setting, and text typing.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs siblings or prerequisites (e.g., device must be set). The implication that it works on the 'current device' hints at a precondition, but it's not spelled out. Sibling names suggest context, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools