set_turbo_modeSwitch turbo mode on or off for GREE air conditioners to increase cooling or heating power. Turning it on disables quiet mode to provide stronger airflow.
Enable/disable turbo (powerful) mode. Turning it on disables quiet mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| on | Yes | ||
| 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?
Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful side effect ('Turning it on disables quiet mode'), which is valuable, but it remains silent on what happens when turbo is disabled, whether quiet mode is restored, or any failure/permission behavior.
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 essential action, and every sentence adds information. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 simple setter with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and one key side effect. However, with no annotations and a closely related sibling set_quiet_mode, it should clarify the inverse relationship (what happens when turbo is disabled) and selection guidance to be fully 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?
The schema already documents mac and name, covering 67% of parameters. The description's enable/disable wording maps naturally to the required boolean 'on' parameter, but it adds no extra detail about parameter precedence, format constraints, or behavior when both selectors are supplied.
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 clearly states the action ('Enable/disable') and the target resource ('turbo (powerful) mode'). The added note about disabling quiet mode gives useful context, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling set_quiet_mode or set_mode tools.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its alternatives. With siblings like set_quiet_mode and set_mode, an agent must infer the intended usage from the name alone, since the description never mentions preferred contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.