set_powerTurn a GREE/EWPE-compatible WiFi air conditioner on or off directly over your LAN.
Turn a device on or off.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| on | Yes | true = on, false = off | |
| mac | No | Device MAC (12 hex chars, the canonical identifier). Preferred selector. | |
| name | No | Device name from config, as a convenience alias for mac. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the core power-toggle effect. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, device selection requirements, error behavior, or any additional context an agent would need 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it optimally concise for a simple tool.
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?
Although the schema documents parameters, the description fails to explain how the tool selects a device, especially since neither mac nor name is required while only 'on' is required. It also does not describe return behavior or any constraints, leaving important operational context missing for a mutation tool.
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 the schema already documents the meaning and purpose of all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('turn a device on or off') and clearly indicates the domain of power control, which distinguishes it from siblings like set_mode or set_temperature. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or state the scope beyond the obvious power state change.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.