Retrieve the current status of a DDR media player, including playback state, timecode, clip name, loop, and autoplay mode.
Get the current status of a DDR (media player): playback state, timecode position, clip name, loop, and autoplay mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ddr | Yes | DDR number (1 or 2) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 state whether the call is safe/read-only, whether it polls live state versus cached state, or what an unknown/inactive DDR returns. It implies safety by saying 'Get ... status' but never confirms it, which is a meaningful gap for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the precise fields returned. No filler, no redundancy, every clause earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the enumerated field list (playback state, timecode, clip name, loop, autoplay) usefully previews the return payload. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves the safety profile and error/unknown-value behavior unaddressed for a one-param tool, which is adequate but incomplete.
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% and the single parameter is a constrained enum of 1 or 2, so the schema fully documents the DDR selector. The description adds nothing param-specific, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting and only one parameter exists.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (DDR status) with the expanded acronym and enumerates the fields returned (playback state, timecode, clip name, loop, autoplay). Clearly a read operation distinct from the mutation siblings ddr_play, ddr_stop, ddr_set_loop, ddr_set_autoplay. Lacks explicit sibling routing but the verb distinguishes it.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Get' and the status-reporting purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_audio_state, get_switcher_state, or the DDR control siblings. An agent can infer this is the read companion to the DDR setters, but that inference is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.