Enable or disable a specific UI module by reverse-domain ID. Toggle whether that module can be opened on a connected Lemon-enabled iPhone.
Compatibility alias for enabling or disabling one UI Module.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | Whether the Module can be opened | |
| module_id | Yes | Reverse-domain Module id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether disabling a module takes effect immediately or requires a runtime reload, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are required for a state-changing operation.
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?
A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the key qualifier 'compatibility alias' is front-loaded. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness is partly what leaves gaps elsewhere.
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?
For a state-changing two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says almost nothing about effects, prerequisites, or the alias's relationship to toggle_module. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what disabling a module actually does.
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%, with both module_id (reverse-domain id) and enabled (whether the Module can be opened) documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb pair (enabling/disabling), the resource (one UI Module), and adds the notable qualifier that this is a 'compatibility alias'. That qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling toggle_module, though it does not name that sibling outright.
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?
Calling itself a 'compatibility alias' implies this is a legacy path that should only be used for backwards compatibility, which is a usable hint. However, it never states explicitly when to prefer toggle_module or under what conditions this alias is appropriate, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.