Retrieve the grouping status of a Bluesound player, showing whether it leads or follows a group and listing all group members.
Get a player's grouping info: whether it's leading or following a group, and who's in it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| player | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description only implies a read-only operation through the word 'Get'. It does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not modify state, or describe error conditions or required permissions.
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 concise and to the point, using a single sentence to convey the core functionality. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the two aspects (leading/following and membership).
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description does not specify the output format or structure of the 'grouping info'. While it mentions 'who's in it', it does not clarify whether the return is a list, object, or other type. Since no output schema is provided, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about the expected response.
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 only parameter 'player' has no description in the schema or in the tool description. The description does not clarify whether it expects a player ID, name, or other identifier, nor does it explain the expected format or constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning.
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 tool's function: 'Get a player's grouping info' and specifies it covers leading/following status and group membership. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_status, which likely addresses a broader status, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparison with other status or grouping tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.