Bosch Smart Home Camera MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.7.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a specific camera feature or action, with clear get/set pairs and distinct operations for friends, firmware, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'bosch_camera_<feature>_<verb>', using snake_case throughout. Verbs are descriptive and uniform across features.
Tool Count2/5
55 tools is exceptionally high for a typical MCP server. While each tool corresponds to a distinct camera functionality, the sheer number may overwhelm agents and suggests possible over-fragmentation.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers virtually all camera configurations (audio, motion, privacy, lighting, siren, recording, rules, etc.) and includes useful utilities (LAN ping, token status, health check). Missing are clip download/playback and Wi-Fi configuration.
Average 4/5 across 55 of 55 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- Last stable release on August 19, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (toggle) but discloses no side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or behaviors like whether the change persists or requires camera connectivity. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient but at the cost of omitting critical context. It is front-loaded but insufficiently informative, making it mediocre in structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool changes state (notifications toggle) and has an output schema (not shown) but the description does not cover prerequisites, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a simple mutation tool, it lacks completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no clarification. The 'camera' parameter is not explained (e.g., type of identifier expected) and 'enabled' is described only as a boolean toggle, which is already clear from the schema. The description fails to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Toggle' and identifies the resource 'push notifications for one camera', making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like audio or motion settings. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of notifications (e.g., motion alerts, all events) and could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like bosch_camera_audio_detection_set or bosch_camera_motion_set. The description does not mention prerequisites, configuration state, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool removes all zones (destructive hint implied) and returns an empty list. However, with no annotations, the description is the sole source; it lacks details like irreversibility or state requirements. Acceptable but minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence), but sacrifices necessary details. Under-specification reduces effectiveness; conciseness alone does not suffice.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (clear action, one parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly adequate but lacks parameter clarification and usage context, leaving room for misinterpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'camera' is a string with no description in the schema. The description does not clarify what the camera parameter refers to (e.g., ID, name, or IP). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove all motion-detection zones'), the resource ('for one camera'), and the return value ('Returns the (empty) list'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_zones_get and motion_zones_set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., removing zones individually via motion_zones_set). No prerequisites or context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Only provided fields change', indicating partial update, but omits error conditions, idempotency, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured. It earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify the return value or provide enough context for correct usage. It is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters and partial update semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameter meanings, formats, or relationships. With 7 parameters, this is a significant gap that the description fails to address.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing automation rule for one camera' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like add, delete, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when updating a rule but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose more of the write/au behavior. It does mention 'API: PUT /v/video_inputs/{id}/lighting/switch' and 'full-body write, GET-merged', which hints at the underlying mechanism. However, it does not state side effects, reversibility, permissions requirements, or whether existing lighting settings get overwritten.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, starting with the action and core constraint. The API line adds technical context about the write mode. It is concise, although the 'full-body write, GET-merged' detail could be clearer or more prominently linked to the call flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives enough to understand the operation and valid values for two key parameters, but the 'camera' parameter is left to inference. Even with a camera list sibling, trusting the caller to know the schema's camera pattern makes the description less complete than ideal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that position must be 'top' or 'bottom' and that brightness is a 0-100% scale, and the API path suggests 'camera' is the id in the URL. The meaning of 'camera' is still implicit rather than explicitly define description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set top or bottom LED brightness (0-100%).' It identifies the exact resource being modified and the valid value range. It also adds a compatibility constraint, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as bosch_camera_light_set or bosch_camera_status_led_set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage through the 'Set' verb and supports 'fromally' cameras, but it does not explicitly describe when to choose this tool over siblings like bosch_camera_led_brightness_get or bosch_camera_light_set. The 'Gen2 cameras only' note is a useful exclusion but does not fully route the model to or away from alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry more weight. It discloses the returned polar range and the Gen2-only restriction, and the GET endpoint implies read-only access. However, it does not cover error cases, auth requirements, behavior on unsupported cameras, or whether any side effects exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, with the Gen2 limitation placed clearly in its own sentence. The additional API path line is not essential but does not make the definition verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter getter with an output schema, the definition is mostly sufficient. It lacks explicit guidance on how to select this tool among the white-balance-related siblings and what the 'camera' parameter should contain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema's only param 'camera' has no description (0% schema coverage), and the tool description does not explain its meaning or expected values. The API endpoint's /{id} segment is the only indirect clue that the param is a camera identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a clear resource ('front light's white balance') and action ('Get'), and adds the value range from -1.0 to 1.0. It is easily distinguishable from white_balance_set by verb, though it does not explicitly reference that sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only says 'Gen2 cameras only,' which provides a compatibility restriction but not explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the set variant or how to handle non-Gen2 cameras. Usage niche is 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It states it returns 'most recent' events, which is vague regarding time window. It does not explicitly confirm read-only status, but returns data. Lacks details on ordering, pagination, or authentication. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very short: two sentences. Front-loaded with purpose, then lists output fields. No unnecessary words. Could add more detail without sacrificing conciseness, but current structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 params, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and output fields. However, it lacks usage context among 30+ siblings, parameter details, and behavioral specifics. Minimal but functional; leaves gaps for an AI agent to resolve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description does not explain the camera parameter (expected value) or the limit parameter (default, meaning). It only lists output fields. The schema provides types but adds no semantic context beyond the description's purpose. Agent needs more param info to use correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns the most recent motion/person/audio events for a specific camera. The verb 'Return' and resource 'events' are specific. Among siblings like bosch_camera_motion_get and bosch_camera_audio_get, this tool aggregates event types, distinguishing it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bosch_camera_motion_get or bosch_camera_unread_get. Description does not mention when-not-to-use or provide context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the operation is a get (read), but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or behavior when camera is offline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 12 words with no extra verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose, but lacks parameter details. However, for a simple info retrieval tool, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify the 'camera' parameter format (e.g., ID, name, serial). It only says 'one camera', adding no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get), resource (firmware version and update-availability), and scope (one camera). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'bosch_camera_firmware_install' which installs firmware.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. Usage is implied as checking firmware status before an install, but no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states the effect (enable/disable audio) and the API endpoint, but omits details on permission requirements, error handling, idempotency, or consequences of setting audio when not supported by the camera.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise: one sentence, a code block with parameter clarifications, and the API call. Every element adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 2 required parameters and an output schema, so description need not cover returns. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., camera status, permissions) and fails to mention error cases or idempotency, which are important for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains the 'sound_on' parameter with examples and the API body format, but does not describe the 'camera' parameter beyond its name, leaving ambiguity about identifier format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Enable or disable audio in cloud recordings for one camera', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on recording audio settings, but does not explicitly contrast with other audio-related tools like bosch_camera_audio_set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage by showing boolean parameter examples (sound_on=True/False). It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as bosch_camera_audio_set for non-recording audio.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('list') but does not reveal any side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately defines the tool's purpose for a simple list operation, but it fails to mention that an output schema exists (which could document return structure). It provides minimal context for an AI to understand the scope of results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds context by linking the 'camera' parameter to the act of listing rules. However, it does not explain the required format or any constraints beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'automation rules configured for one camera', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add/delete/edit. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify when to list rules versus other list operations, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It only states the action, omitting details like authorization requirements, whether the invite is sent immediately, idempotency, or error cases (e.g., duplicate email).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short phrases. It is front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary details for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter and an output schema, the description should clarify the result (e.g., success message, pending invite). It lacks prerequisites and side effects, making it incomplete for reliable agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name 'email' by noting '(by email)'. It does not explain format, validation, or implications.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Invite' and the resource 'a new friend (by email)' to share cameras, and specifies it is account-level. It distinguishes from sibling tools like friends_list, friends_remove, friends_share, and friends_unshare.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use: to invite someone via email. It mentions 'Account-level' which clarifies scope. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes a read operation returning a boolean, and mentions the API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose any error conditions or auth requirements. The return type is mentioned, which is good.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with two sentences and an API line. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The API endpoint adds useful context, though it could be omitted if not needed. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with one parameter and an output schema (mentioned in context), the description is adequate. It explains the return value and the single capability. However, it could mention that it only gets audio recording options (since that's the only field returned), but the description already implies that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'camera' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description says 'for one camera' but does not clarify what format or identifier is expected (e.g., camera ID, name). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets cloud recording options for one camera and specifies the return value (sound_on). The verb 'get' and the resource 'cloud recording options' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like recording_set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when to avoid using it. Sibling tools exist (e.g., recording_set) but no comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the fresh snapshot behavior, LAN-only constraint, and the file save location (~/.cache/...). However, with no annotations, it lacks explicit statements about destructiveness (presumably none) or rate limits, and does not detail the authentication mechanism beyond mentioning HTTP Digest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a requirement line. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, front-loading the core action and key constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter set (only one) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value details), the description covers purpose, network constraint, and local file output. It is nearly complete, though could optionally mention whether the call is synchronous or blocking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It mentions 'camera IP' in context but does not clearly define the 'camera' parameter (e.g., whether it expects a name, ID, or IP address). This lack of explicit mapping reduces its helpfulness for an AI agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool captures a fresh snapshot via LAN only, using HTTP Digest. The verb 'Capture' and resource 'snapshot' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like bosch_camera_mjpeg_snapshot, the emphasis on LAN-only and no cloud roundtrip provides implicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear prerequisite: the MCP host must be on the same network as the camera. However, it does not offer when-not-to-use guidance or suggest alternative tools for cloud-based snapshots, leaving some ambiguity for the AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only indicates it's a read operation ('get'), but lacks details on safety, idempotency, authentication requirements, or what happens if the camera name is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a simple get-status tool with an output schema (so return values are covered). However, without annotations, more context about error states or typical usage would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage with 1 required parameter 'camera' of type string. Description adds one useful detail: case-insensitivity, but does not explain what constitutes a valid camera name or how to obtain it, which is insufficient given low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'current status', and scope 'one camera by name (case-insensitive)'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bosch_camera_list' which lists all cameras.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for retrieving status of a specific camera, but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'bosch_camera_health_check_all' for detailed health or 'bosch_camera_list' for listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the GET endpoint, the read-only nature through 'Get', the camera-generation limitation, and the interpretation of ranges (0% = always day, 100% = always night). This is useful contextual behavior beyond just restating the tool's name. It does not go into authentication or rate limits, but those are not present in any annotation and may not be expected for a simple GET.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three short lines cover the high-level operation, compatibility, value semantics, and the HTTP endpoint. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only operation, the description covers the purpose, important range interpretation, and API endpoint. An output schema exists and can define the response format. But because annotations and schema param descriptions are absent, the description falls short of fully explaining the camera param, and it doesn't mention whether any special auth or camera state is needed. It is useful but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter, 'camera', and the schema gives no description for it. The description's API line, 'GET /v11/video_inputs/{id}/lighting', obliquely suggests that the camera parameter corresponds to an ID, but it never explicitly maps 'camera' to '{id}' or explains expected values or format. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more decisively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('day/night lighting threshold and fading mode'), and it adds a compatibility restriction ('Gen2 cameras only'). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, but the tool name and the read-oriented phrasing make its purpose unmistakable. A small deduction because it doesn't contrast itself with related tools like bosch_camera_darkness_threshold_set or bosch_camera_lighting_schedule_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear compatibility constraint: 'Gen2 cameras only.' This implies when not to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when reading the threshold; use darkness_threshold_set when writing' or identify alternative siblings. The usage context is mostly inferable from the name and context signals, but it lacks direct when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool raises specific HTTP errors (442 for hardware unsupported, 444 for camera offline), which adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, starting with the core purpose. It is efficient, but the API endpoint detail could be integrated more concisely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description lacks parameter help and does not mention any required permissions. For a simple read tool with many siblings, it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'camera' has a type but no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not add any meaning about what the 'camera' parameter expects (e.g., format, ID, or valid values), leaving the agent without guidance to fill it correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource 'LED lighting schedule for one outdoor (Eyes) camera'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bosch_camera_lighting_schedule_set' and 'bosch_camera_light_set'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions hardware and connectivity prerequisites and error conditions, but does not explicitly state when this tool should be used versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this to read the schedule, use set to change it'). The guidance is implied but not direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the destructive nature (delete) and return format, but does not mention error handling, idempotency, or side effects beyond the deletion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence with the action and one with the return format. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks context for a two-parameter tool with no annotations. It does not explain source for camera or rule_id, nor error scenarios. The return format is noted, but likely already in output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; the description adds no meaning to parameters 'camera' and 'rule_id'. It does not clarify what these identifiers refer to (e.g., camera ID, rule ID) or how to obtain them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete), the resource (automation rule), and scope (from one camera). It is distinct from sibling tools like bosch_camera_rules_add, bosch_camera_rules_edit, and bosch_camera_rules_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. The description implies deletion when a rule is no longer needed, but lacks context like prerequisites or conditions for safe use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses destructive behavior (removes entirely) and return format, going beyond basic purpose. It does not cover authentication or reversibility, but it is transparent about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences front-loaded with key information and no unnecessary words. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, side effects, and return format, but lacks parameter documentation and prerequisites (e.g., 'friend_id must exist'). Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the required 'friend_id' parameter (e.g., how to obtain it or its format). No added value beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove a friend entirely' with specific side effects (revokes shares, deletes invitation/friendship), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like friends_invite, friends_share, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for final removal but does not explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives like friends_unshare. No when-not or comparative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals that this is a write/set operation and gives the HTTP contract, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, error behavior, reversibility, or whether the change takes effect immediately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: the primary action and constraints come first, followed by the exact API specification. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter setter, the description provides enough invocation-critical detail: operation, range, unit, and raw API shape. Since an output schema exists and the schema exposes the two required parameters, the remaining gaps around authentication and side effects are noticeable but not blocking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully defines the `meters` parameter with units and a valid range (0.5-5.0) and maps it to the API body field "elevation". However, the `camera` parameter is not explicitly described beyond the API path placeholder `{id}`, leaving some interpretation to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action as 'Set the lens mounting height in meters (0.5-5.0)', specifying a concrete verb, resource, unit, and allowed range. This also distinguishes the tool from the sibling getter bosch_camera_lens_elevation_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a meaningful usage constraint ('Gen2 cameras only') and the exact API endpoint, which tells the agent when it is not applicable. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with related tools or explain when to prefer the getter or other camera configuration tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does state the outcome explicitly (turn overlay on/off) and includes the precise API call and body. However, it gives no information about whether the operation requires special permissions, whether it is idempotent, whether it takes effect immediately, or what errors may occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose with no wasted words, and the second sentence supplies the actionable API contract. Every sentence provides distinct value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter, the description is largely complete. It names the target resource, the on/off behavior, the API endpoint, and the request body shape. There is an output schema available, so return-value documentation is not required. The main missing context is explicit guidance around alternatives and side effects, but for this low-complexity tool the level of detail is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does clarify that the boolean parameter controls the date/time overlay, and the included API body shows a boolean value is sent. Yet it does not explain exactly how the 'camera' string is used, and the API body's 'result' field is not explicitly mapped to the 'enabled' parameter, so some ambiguity remains.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 the date/time video overlay on or off for one camera.' This clearly distinguishes the set operation from the sibling getter tool and leaves no doubt about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of related tools such as bosch_camera_timestamp_overlay_get or other configuration setters. The API path is provided, but the tool does not state prerequisites, preconditions, or situations where a different tool should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool removes zones and returns an empty list, but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects. Basic disclosure but missing depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, though it could include slightly more detail without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema shown, and a mutation operation, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the basic action and return, but lacks details on reversibility, prerequisites, or error conditions. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'for one camera' but does not explain what the 'camera' parameter expects (e.g., ID, name). Minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove all privacy-mask zones'), the specific resource ('for one camera'), and the output ('Returns the (empty) list'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get (returns current list) and set (sets specific zones).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use when you want to clear all privacy masks. The context of sibling tools (get, set) makes the alternative clear, but no explicit 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides useful behavioral context: it exposes the underlying API method (PUT), the endpoint, the request body fields, and the observable consequence. With no annotations available, it could have covered more (authentication, failure cases, whether the operation is reversible), but the mutation behavior itself is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a one-line purpose statement, a short user-visible effect, and the exact API contract. Every sentence contributes information and the most important detail (rename) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter rename operation, the description gives the API endpoint and visible outcome, and an output schema exists to describe results. However, because there are no annotations and no parameter descriptions, details like the expected format of `camera` or the source/handling of `timeZone` remain ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the entire parameter burden. It adds the underlying API field names `videoInputId`, `title`, and `timeZone`, which hints at how `camera` and `new_name` map to the API, but the mapping is not explicit and `timeZone` is unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation: rename a camera through the Bosch cloud API, with an observable outcome (the name changes in the Bosch app). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the many sibling camera tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Rename is self-descriptive and the description implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites like having selected a camera, and no exclusions. The usage intent is clear but still left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the rule is created active and returns the created rule with an ID. This provides useful behavioral context, though side effects or prerequisites are not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 required parameters and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the time-related params and return value, but lacks explanations for camera and name parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates partially. It explains start/end time format and days indexing (0=Monday), adding meaning for 3 of 5 parameters. However, camera and name are left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new automation rule for one camera.' This specifies a unique verb-resource combination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit, delete, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit or delete). It only describes the tool's function without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' and 'API: GET /v11/...' make the read-only nature clear, and the 0-100% plus Gen2-only scope sets expectations. It does not discuss error behaviors, permissions, or what happens on unsupported camera generations, but for a simple read operation this is a reasonable disclosure level.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main action, allowed values, and Gen2-only constraint. The position constraint and HTTP endpoint are each stated once and in a structured way, with no filler or unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple two-parameter getter, and the description sufficiently captures the key compatibility, position values, and API endpoint. Since an output schema exists, the return values do not need to be explained. The only real gap is the format/identifier expected for camera, which the API path partially addresses via {id}.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add essential meaning: position must be exactly "top" or "bottom", and the API path maps camera to the {id} placeholder. However, the camera parameter itself is not fully explained, so the agent still has to infer what value to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get top or bottom LED brightness (0-100%)'. It also adds the Gen2-only compatibility constraint and the allowed positions, making it clear this is a read tool. It does not explicitly name the corresponding sibling, bosch_camera_led_brightness_set, to differentiate, so it stops just short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Gen2 cameras only' is an explicit compatibility boundary, and 'position must be "top" or "bottom"' clearly states which reading must be made. The description does not explicitly name an alternative for Gen1 cameras or tell the agent when to prefer this tool over the setter sibling, but the overall usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does 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 discloses that this is a read-only GET operation and adds the Gen2-only caveat, but it does not address authentication, errors for unsupported cameras, or how the LED state is presented beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a short, front-loaded statement: what the tool does plus the API path. There is no padding; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple single-parameter GETter and an output schema exists, so return value documentation is unnecessary. However, the description leaves the key parameter semantics underdetermined and doesn't state how unsupported cameras behave, so the context is only moderate-complete for correctly invoking it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and only the required property 'camera'. The description's endpoint includes a URL parameter id, but it never connects this to the camera argument or explains whether an id, device name, device identifier is expected. The description does not compensate for the single wild card.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: getting the camera's status LED on/off state. It also narrows the domain to Gen2 cameras, so the agent can distinguish this from status LED setter and other camera state tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a clear compatibility constraint ('Gen2 cameras only') and the HTTP verb for retrieval. It implies when to use is (when finding current LED state), though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative for setting it. The constraint is still useful for preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It communicates that this is a read-only operation via 'GET' and 'Get whether', but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or response semantics. It's minimally transparent but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first line, and the API endpoint provides concrete routing information. No redundant words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description provides enough context to identify the intent and endpoint. It lacks explicit parameter guidance and sibling differentiation, but the complexity is low enough that these are not critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'camera' parameter has no schema description, and the description only loosely says 'for one camera'. The API path includes {id}, which helps imply the camera parameter represents an ID, but the description does not explicitly clarify the parameter format or meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get whether...'), a specific resource ('date/time overlay... for one camera'), and the endpoint. It distinguishes itself from timestamp_overlay_set by indicating this is a read/state-check operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool's intended usage is implied by the verb 'Get' and HTTP GET method, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it instead of the paired timestamp_overlay_set sibling. It provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It transparently discloses the reading from the /v11/video_inputs listing, the failure of the direct endpoint, and the return structure. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-only operation, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It includes a parenthetical about testing, which is helpful but slightly informal. No waste, but could be more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, simple return), the description covers the essential behavior and return format. It lacks error handling details but is complete enough for a straightforward tool, especially with an output schema presumably available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'camera' parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not specify the format (e.g., ID, name) or any constraints, leaving the parameter unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'unread event count for one camera'. It distinguishes itself by specifying the exact data source and noting a workaround for a failed endpoint, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving unread event counts but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (enable/disable), hardware dependency, and error condition. It does not detail side effects or response format, but for a toggle tool this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations as none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, each adding value. The first sentence sets the purpose, the second adds a usage constraint, and the third provides the API endpoint and body format. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description need not explain return values. It covers the hardware requirement, error handling, and API details. For a simple set operation, this is near-complete, though adding a note that it performs a write operation would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'enabled' is a boolean for turning auto-tracking on/off, but does not specify the format or expected values for the 'camera' parameter (likely an ID string). The API body example clarifies the structure, yet the camera parameter remains ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool enables or disables 360° auto-tracking for one camera, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings, such as bosch_camera_autofollow_get which retrieves the state, by indicating this tool is for setting the autofollow state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context on when to use the tool: only for 360° indoor cameras with panLimit > 0. It also specifies the error raised for unsupported camera types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for non-360° cameras, beyond the error condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden, disclosing that 'days' limits share duration and that omitting it gives unlimited sharing. It also mentions the return format. However, it omits error conditions or idempotency details, which are partially mitigated by the tool's simplicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences clearly state purpose, parameter behavior, and return value. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no annotations and an output schema only hinted at in the description, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it lacks error handling details, prerequisites (e.g., friend must exist), and whether sharing is additive or replaces existing shares.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'days' parameter and its optionality, but provides no additional details for 'camera' or 'friend_id'. The other parameters are self-explanatory from context, but more explicit semantics would be beneficial given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Share one camera with an existing friend,' specifying the verb, resource, and target audience. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like bosch_camera_friends_invite (inviting new friends) and bosch_camera_friends_unshare (removing sharing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies using this tool for sharing with an existing friend, contrasting with invite for new friends, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses using ffmpeg, pulling a single frame from RTSPS stream (inst=3 sub-stream), saving to a specific cache directory, and noting lower resolution but faster speed. It does not cover error handling or missing dependencies, but provides substantial behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a one-sentence summary, followed by technical details and prerequisites. It is not overly verbose, though the phrase 'Direct LAN MJPEG snapshot via RTSP inst=3 (Gen2 only)' could be slightly condensed. Still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (local ffmpeg command, prerequisites) and presence of an output schema, the description covers behavior and constraints adequately. However, the missing parameter semantics and lack of guidance on how to specify the camera leave a gap. It is complete enough for agents with domain knowledge but incomplete for naive agents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'camera' with type string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what value the 'camera' parameter expects (e.g., ID, name, IP). This is a gap, especially since the tool likely requires a specific camera identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a 'Direct LAN MJPEG snapshot' via RTSP, specifies it's for Gen2 only, and contrasts with 'snap.jpg' to distinguish from sibling tools like bosch_camera_snapshot. The verb 'snapshot' and resource 'camera MJPEG stream' are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells when to use (for a faster local snapshot vs cloud) and prerequisites: ffmpeg installed, MCP host on same LAN, and Gen2 camera only. It implies when not to use (if these conditions aren't met) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives beyond snap.jpg.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds valuable context: coordinates are normalized 0.0-1.0 and masked areas are permanently blacked out in live view and recordings. This helps the agent understand the return format and the persistent effect of masks. However, it does not mention what happens for invalid cameras or empty mask lists, which might be covered by the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the purpose, the second adds crucial behavioral detail. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and output semantics. It does not address error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a read operation with a straightforward schema, this is reasonable. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%: the description adds no information about the 'camera' parameter beyond its name. The schema already specifies it as a required string, so the description does not compensate by explaining the format (e.g., camera ID, IP, or URL) or any constraints. With only one parameter, even minimal elaboration would help.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists privacy-mask zone rectangles for a single camera. The verb 'List' and resource 'privacy-mask zone rectangles' are specific. The tool name itself distinguishes from siblings like bosch_camera_privacy_masks_set and bosch_camera_privacy_masks_clear, and no other sibling lists similar data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (to retrieve existing masks), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., camera must exist), or alternatives. The purpose is clear, but no usage boundaries are set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the camera briefly drops offline and—critically—warns that a 404 may really mean 'not supported for this camera/account' rather than a client error. It does not mention permissions or response behavior, but for a simple reset operation this is strong transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is frontloaded with the action and its main effect, then gives the API specifics, then the exception caveat. The 404 note is detailed but earns its place by preventing the agent from misdiagnosing a valid failure mode. No repeating or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter action with no annotations and an output schema present, the description includes enough: the HTTP method, path, empty body, side effect, and an operational ambiguity in the failure response. The main gap is that the 'camera' parameter itself is not described, so an agent may still need to infer that it is the camera ID used in previous Bosch tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only declares a required 'camera' string with zero description. The API path '/v11/video_inputs/{id}/soft_reset' hints that the camera parameter is the Bosch video input ID, but the description never explicitly maps the parameter to that ID. This partially compensates for the missing schema documentation but does not fully clarify format or where the value comes from.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Reboot one camera (soft reset).' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling bosch_camera_hard_reset by making the soft reset nature explicit. The API path and the behavior 'camera briefly drops offline' leave no doubt about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied: rebooting a single camera via soft reset. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as hard reset, and no exclusions or conditions are given. The offline-warning is useful, but not a selection guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: it raises invalid_argument for concurrent installs or when up-to-date, and explains that the camera reboots for 3-7 minutes while the call returns immediately. Missing details like authentication or return value, but sufficient for a straightforward action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each providing essential information: the action, error guards, and post-install behavior. No redundant phrases; concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core action and notable behaviors but omits parameter details and any mention of the output schema (despite its presence). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a noticeable gap, though the output schema likely documents return values separately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'camera' parameter (e.g., what values it accepts). It only mentions 'one camera' vaguely. This gap forces the agent to infer the parameter's meaning from the schema alone, which is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Install) and resource (pending firmware update for one camera). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'bosch_camera_firmware_status', which checks for updates, making it clear that this tool performs the installation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when a pending update exists) and specifies error conditions (install in progress, no pending update). It could be more explicit about prerequisites (e.g., check status first) and alternatives, but context from siblings helps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return value format (enabled, sensitivity) with enumerated values, and provides API endpoint. No annotations, so description carries burden well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with no redundant text. First sentence states purpose, subsequent ones add useful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists and single parameter, description adequately covers return value and API. Could mention read-only nature but not required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter 'camera' is mentioned in description as 'for one camera', but not explicitly described. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but could be clearer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'motion detection settings', clearly distinguishing from sibling 'bosch_camera_motion_set'. Scope 'for one camera' is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by name and description, but no enrichment over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the core behavior (enabling/disabling sound) and includes the API call format. However, it does not disclose requirements (e.g., camera permissions), side effects, or persistence. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with three clear sections: a sentence describing purpose, example usage with Python-like syntax, and the API endpoint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need description. The description covers the main functionality and parameter usage. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., camera must already exist) but is otherwise sufficient for a simple setter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `enabled` parameter well with examples (`True`/`False`). However, the `camera` parameter lacks any explanation of its format or how to obtain it. Thus, adds partial value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool enables or disables the audible indicator for privacy mode changes. It uses specific verbs ('Enable or disable') and identifies the resource ('audible indicator'). The sibling `bosch_camera_privacy_sound_get` exists, so the description effectively distinguishes this as the setter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: to change the audible indicator behavior. It implies usage for toggling sound on/off. While no explicit alternatives are named, the sibling `bosch_camera_privacy_sound_get` is the complementary read tool, making the distinction clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It correctly describes a read-only operation, explains the opcodes used, and states what is returned (primary and secondary versions in dotted decimal and raw hex). It could be more explicit about being non-destructive, but the intent is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with key information front-loaded: the main action in the first sentence, followed by return details and use case. It is structured logically without unnecessary words. A minor improvement would be clarifying the camera parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, returns version info), the description covers the purpose, return format, and use case. It assumes knowledge of the camera parameter, which is a gap, but overall it provides sufficient context. The existence of an output schema helps, though the description also explains the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has only one parameter 'camera' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description does not explain what this parameter represents or its expected format. It mentions requirements for local_ip and credentials, which are not part of the schema, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the RCP firmware version, specifies the operation (via LAN with opcodes), and indicates the return format. It distinguishes itself from siblings which handle different camera functions (e.g., audio, motion).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the tool is useful for diagnosing protocol compatibility and requires local IP and credentials, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but given the uniqueness of the function among siblings, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It compensates well by specifying a mutating HTTP method (PUT), the exact endpoint, the payload format, and the intended on/off effect. It could add details about permissions or persistence, but for a simple LED state toggle this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, compatibility second, and API details last. Every sentence adds relevant information with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter with an output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it gives purpose, compatibility, and the exact API contract. The only real gap is the absence of explicit parameter-to-field mapping, but the operation and endpoint are clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only partially compensates. The endpoint path and the body state 'ON'/'OFF' imply that `camera` maps to the path id and `enabled` maps to the state field, but the description never explicitly states this mapping. The `enabled` boolean to 'ON'/'OFF' relationship is inferred rather than documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Turn the camera's status LED on or off.' It clearly identifies the operation, the target resource, and adds a compatibility constraint ('Gen2 cameras only'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like status_led_get, light_set, or led_brightness_set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear scope condition: 'Gen2 cameras only.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as bosch_camera_status_led_get for reading the LED state or bosch_camera_led_brightness_set for brightness control. Usage guidance is 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the action revokes all shares, the friend entry persists (non-destructive to friend), and the return format. It lacks details on side effects or prerequisites but is adequate for a simple operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states action and side effect, second describes return. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (1 param, implied output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and return. It could mention that the friend must exist, but overall it is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'friend_id' is or how to obtain it. The parameter name alone is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Revoke ALL camera shares') and distinguishes from related siblings (e.g., bosch_camera_friends_remove removes the friend, bosch_camera_friends_share adds shares) by noting the friend entry remains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context of siblings (friends_share, friends_remove, etc.) implies when to use this tool (to revoke shares without removing the friend), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the output includes online status, but lacks information on potential behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. Without annotations, more detail would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the purpose without waste. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does without needing additional detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all configured Bosch cameras with their online status. The verb 'list' and resource 'configured Bosch cameras' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on individual cameras or features.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it is implied that listing cameras is a prerequisite for other operations. However, no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the valid input range, generation compatibility, the exact API endpoint, and that it is a full-body write with GET-merged semantics. This gives meaningful behavioral insight beyond the tool name, though it stops short of explaining side effects or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the intended action, and every sentence contributes. The first sentence establishes the purpose and constraints; the second provides useful API-level detail without padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the range and API but leaves the 'camera' parameter unexplained and omits clear guidance on permissions or failure conditions. The output schema exists, so return value documentation is less critical, but the missing camera semantics and preconditions make it only moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'value' parameter via the white balance range (-1.0..1.0), but it does not explain the 'camera' parameter or its expected format beyond the schema's basic string type. Thus coverage is partial but helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Set the front light's white balance' with a specified numeric range and a Gen2-only compatibility constraint. It is a specific verb + resource that distinguishes it from siblings like bosch_camera_white_balance_get and bosch_camera_light_set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states a key usage constraint ('Gen2 cameras only') and clarifies the operation is a write/update to lighting settings. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the scope is sufficiently clear to infer when this tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. Discloses the return format ({glass_break, fire_alarm}) and a key error case (hardware_unsupported for Gen1). Does not mention authentication, rate limits, or other potential errors, but is sufficiently transparent for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by compatibility and return format. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, simple return) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, error behavior, and return format comprehensively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name. The 'camera' parameter is not described in terms of format or expected values (e.g., serial number vs device ID). With only one parameter, the description should provide more context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'glass-break + smoke/fire-alarm sound detection config' for a Gen2 camera. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bosch_camera_audio_detection_set' and other audio tools by specifying the exact configuration returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit compatibility conditions: only Gen2 Audio-Plus cameras with featureSupport.sound=true, and raises hardware_unsupported for Gen1. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings like bosch_camera_audio_get or privacy_sound_get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the scope and that it lists both friends and invitations, but it does not disclose whether it returns pending or accepted ones, or require any authentication details. For a read-only list tool, the description is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool (no parameters), the description is sufficiently complete. It could optionally mention the format of the response, but overall it provides necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'friends/invitations this account has shared cameras with'. It also clarifies the scope as account-level, distinguishing it from per-camera tools like bosch_camera_friends_share.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'No camera parameter — friends are account-level, not per-camera,' helping the agent understand when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools like bosch_camera_friends_invite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses return tuple structure, field meanings, valid ranges, and error condition for Gen1. Good behavioral coverage for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise with front-loaded purpose. Field details are structured in a code block, efficient but slightly lengthy. Could be trimmed if output schema covers returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completeness is high given output schema existence. Description adds value by explaining return fields, detection mode mapping, and the Gen2 identification method.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate. The only parameter 'camera' is self-explanatory, but no additional format or usage guidance is provided. Adequate for a simple string parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'intrusion detection configuration' for one Gen2 camera. Distinguishes from sibling bosch_camera_intrusion_set and specifies Gen2-only scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states Gen2-only availability and raises hardware_unsupported for Gen1 cameras. Provides clear context for when to use, though no explicit alternative for Gen1 is suggested.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: 'GET' implies read-only access, 'configured' indicates it returns an existing setting rather than changing it, and the Gen2-only restriction is disclosed. It also explains why the value matters, which goes beyond the machine-readable schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences with no fluff: the purpose and unit are front-loaded, the compatibility caveat is prominent, and the API path provides useful reference. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the operation, scope, units, end-to-end reason, and API shape. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that `camera` must be a video input id or name, but the endpoint template largely fills that in.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no per-parameter description, so the description must help map the lone `camera` parameter. The endpoint path suggests that `{id}` corresponds to `camera`, and the unit/direction of the value is clear, but the mapping is implicit rather than explicit. That is a useful clue but not a full parameter explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the exact action ('Get'), the resource ('configured lens mounting height'), the unit (meters), and a key constraint (Gen2 only). The companion setter is clearly distinguished, and the endpoint path is included for disambiguation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions a concrete use case (perspective correction in person detection) and limits the tool to Gen2 cameras, giving an explicit applicability constraint. It does not name alternative tools or provide a when-not-to-use strategy, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description compensates by disclosing the implicit enable when only sensitivity is set, and mentions the API endpoint. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a bullet for sensitivity values. The API line is somewhat extra but not harmful. Could be slightly tighter without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main parameter interactions and implicit behavior. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., camera must exist, permissions needed) and does not reference the get counterpart or explain the output schema. Given moderate complexity and existing output schema, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the required combination of parameters, enumerates sensitivity values, and explains the implicit behavior. It does not describe the 'camera' parameter beyond its name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the function: 'Set motion detection enabled state and/or sensitivity for one camera.' The verb 'set' and resource 'motion detection' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bosch_camera_motion_get (which gets) and other set tools for different features.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies constraints: 'At least one of enabled or sensitivity must be provided' and explains the sensitivity values and implicit enabling behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or provide when-not use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description adequately covers behavior: coordinates are normalized 0.0-1.0, returns empty list if no zones, and raises privacy_blocked error when camera is in privacy mode. It also implies read-only nature. Could add details about response structure, but given the existence of an output schema, the description remains transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains coordinate normalization, third covers boundary cases (no zones, privacy mode). No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, list output), the description covers essential behavioral aspects. It mentions coordinates, empty list, and error handling. With an output schema in place, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'camera' is self-explanatory by name and tool context, but the description does not elaborate on its format, allowed values, or how to obtain a camera identifier. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description could add more value but the parameter is simple enough.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List the motion-detection zone rectangles configured for one camera,' specifying the action (list), resource (motion-detection zone rectangles), and scope (one camera). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like bosch_camera_motion_zones_set and bosch_camera_motion_zones_clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for retrieving zones of a single camera, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use compared to alternatives. However, the purpose is straightforward, and the mention of the privacy_blocked error condition gives guidance on a specific scenario to watch for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a GET operation, specifies the API endpoint, and indicates the return format ({enabled}). However, it omits details like required authentication or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the verb-resource pair, behavioral context, return format, and API endpoint. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, read-only with output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose, usage, and return. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'camera' parameter (e.g., its format or expected values). The schema lists it as a string, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('privacy-sound indicator setting for one camera'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bosch_camera_privacy_sound_set, which sets the same setting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context about when the setting is used (plays audible indicator when privacy mode changes) but does not explicitly state when to use this getter vs. alternatives like the setter or other get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses network and credential requirements, the absence of cloud relay, and implies read-only behavior via 'Get'. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, but the context is sufficient for a retrieval operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs. The first states the core purpose, the second adds necessary prerequisites. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and output usage (ffmpeg/VLC/go2rtc). The existence of an output schema compensates for missing return value details. Slightly more explanation of the parameter format would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'camera' parameter lacks a schema description (0% coverage). The description partially clarifies it by referencing local config, but does not explicitly state whether it expects a name or ID, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a LAN RTSPS stream URL for one camera, distinguishing it from cloud relay and sibling tools that handle other camera operations. The verb 'Get' and resource 'LAN RTSPS stream URL' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear prerequisites (same network, local credentials) that define when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context and sibling list imply this is the only stream URL tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the return structure ({microphone_level, speaker_level, intercom_enabled}) and explains the intercom_enabled field can be None. It also mentions the hardware_unsupported error condition. This is sufficient transparency for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with only 4 sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers scope, error condition, and return details without unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (implied by listing return fields), the description provides all necessary context: purpose, hardware requirements, error behavior, and return structure. It is fully adequate for a single-parameter read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). While the description does not explicitly describe the 'camera' parameter, it provides context about which cameras are valid (Gen2 with sound=true), implying the parameter is a camera identifier. However, it does not specify format or constraints on the parameter value, so it partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'microphone and speaker level settings', and qualifies it as 'for one Gen2 camera', distinguishing it from sibling tools like bosch_camera_audio_set (set) and bosch_camera_audio_detection_get (get detection settings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly limits usage to cameras with featureSupport.sound=true, specifically Gen2 Indoor II and Gen2 Outdoor II, and warns that it raises an error for Gen1 or unsupported Gen2 cameras. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for unsupported cases, but the guidance is clear and practical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the operation is a mutation, that unspecified fields are preserved, and that only Gen2 cameras are supported. It also gives the exact API endpoint and body fields, which helps the agent anticipate the underlying request.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: the main purpose leads, then the key constraint, then the API details. Each sentence serves a purpose and there is minimal redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter setter with an output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It captures the core operation, the parameter constraint, the partial-update semantics, and the low-level API mapping. It omits permission requirements, but that is a relatively minor gap for this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are missing entirely (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does: it gives the 0-100 range for threshold_percent, explains soft_light_fading as a fading mode, and clarifies the 'at least one required' constraint. The camera parameter is not described, but the API path implies it is the camera ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the day/night lighting threshold and/or fading mode.' It also scopes the tool to Gen2 cameras only, which clearly identifies its purpose and distinguishes it from the corresponding getter, bosch_camera_darkness_threshold_get, and from other lighting tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives useful usage constraints: Gen2 cameras only, and at least one of threshold_percent or soft_light_fading must be provided. It clearly implies when to use this tool versus the matching getter, and explains the partial-update behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the return type (raw dict of booleans), and that it's account-level. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects, though for a read operation this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at four sentences, front-loads the action and endpoint, and includes a relevant example. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and a simple return type, the description fully explains what it does, what it returns (with example), and the scope (account-level). It meets all needs for correct selection and invocation given the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explicitly stating there is no camera parameter and that flags are account-level, which clarifies the scope beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it fetches account-level Bosch cloud feature flags, returns a raw dict of flag names to booleans, and provides an example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are camera-specific by explicitly noting no camera parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It says 'Useful for discovering which Bosch platform features are active for this account' and emphasizes 'No camera parameter — flags are account-level.' This implies when to use it, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It reveals the RCP command, that it's read-only, and the return structure. Lacks info on rate limits or latency, but acceptable for a simple read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, no waste, directly states purpose, constraints, and output. Front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with output schema, description is complete: covers what it does, prerequisites, constraints, and what is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage. Description does not explain the 'camera' parameter beyond the schema, but adds context about required configuration and Gen2 restriction. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states it reads ONVIF device scopes via LAN RCP command, lists returned fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying Gen2-only and the specific command code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clearly states prerequisite (local credentials in bosch_config.json) and constraint (Gen2 only). Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the API call is a GET request, details the returned fields with units and examples, and implies read-only behavior. Does not cover error handling or rate limits, but is otherwise transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, well-structured with a code block for API path and returned fields. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description covers the output format and usage context completely. No gaps for an agent to misinterpret.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'for one camera' but does not elaborate on how to specify the camera (e.g., ID, name, or format). Minimal guidance beyond purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets WiFi signal quality for one camera, specifying the API endpoint and exact data returned (RSSI, SSID, signal_strength). It is distinct from sibling tools which cover other camera operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases: diagnosing connectivity issues, stream drops, and deciding on prefer_local=True. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear and sufficient for a read-only diagnostic tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches from an RSS feed, returns specific fields, and provides recommended actions based on state. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points and front-loads the purpose. It is slightly verbose but still clear and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and no annotations, the description thoroughly explains the output, including detailed recommended_action logic. It is complete for a diagnostic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it fetches cloud maintenance announcements from an RSS feed and specifies the output fields, including recommended actions. It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on camera-specific operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this tool when users ask why cameras are unavailable or when the cloud returns 5xx errors.' This provides clear context, though no explicit alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses pan limits, preset angle mappings, and parameter prioritization. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Lacks details on failure modes or rate limits but adequate for a panning action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Information is dense but could be slightly more concise by reducing redundancy between preset and direction explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers constraints (camera model, panLimit), parameter usage, and priority rules. Output schema exists so return values not needed. Minor gap: doesn't specify behavior when panLimit is 0 or camera incompatible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description thoroughly explains all three parameters: camera (implied), preset (names and angles), direction (names, aliases, integer range). Adds significant meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it pans a specific camera model (Gen1 CAMERA_360 only) and distinguishes from sibling camera tools. Provides specific verb 'Pan' and resource '360° indoor camera'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly notes the tool is only for Gen1 CAMERA_360 with panLimit > 0, and explains preset priority over direction. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that operation is a full replacement (not merge) and that empty list clears all masks. Does not mention side effects like reversibility or permissions, but for a set tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the core action. Earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and mask format. Output schema exists but is not shown, so return value details are not needed. Missing camera format information is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains the 'masks' parameter in detail: each mask has x, y, w, h normalized 0.0-1.0, and empty list clears. The 'camera' parameter is not explained but is straightforward.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Replace' and resource 'privacy-mask zones for one camera'. Explicitly states 'Full replace, not a merge', distinguishing it from any merge-like sibling. Format of masks is specified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage: use when you want to replace all masks with a new list. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to siblings like 'privacy_masks_clear', but the specificity of 'replace all' provides adequate guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the dual-path behavior (LAN vs cloud) and fallback mechanism. Does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the core behavioral trait of toggling privacy is well explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences for core purpose and a short paragraph for optional behavior. No filler, front-loaded with key action, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (context: 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not detail return values. It covers the action and conditional behavior well, though it omits mention of success/failure indications. Still sufficiently complete for a set tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains 'enabled' (hides camera) and 'prefer_local' (LAN-first path). The 'camera' parameter is not explained but is a standard identifier. Two out of three params are clarified, adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Turn privacy mode on or off' and explains the effect of 'enabled=True' (hides the camera). The verb 'Turn' and resource 'privacy mode' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like privacy_sound_get/set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use the 'prefer_local=True' option: when the cloud is down but the camera is LAN-reachable, confirmed via sibling tool 'bosch_camera_lan_ping'. Mentions automatic fallback, giving clear context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses behavior: it parses JWT claims without network, returns fields valid, expires_in_min, email, and explains condition for expired/missing token. With no annotations, this provides high transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure. It covers edge cases (expired/missing token) but does not mention malformed tokens. Still, for a simple status tool, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description does not need to add param info. Baseline 4 for zero parameters applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns bearer token validity, expiry, and email. It specifies it parses the JWT locally without network call, distinguishing it from other camera tools that interact with camera hardware or settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description implies it is a lightweight check (no network call) but does not guide the agent on when to use this over other tools, such as checking token before performing authenticated operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return format ({enabled}), conditions for meaningful use, error case for unsupported cameras, and underlying API endpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameter, return format, conditions, and error case. Output schema exists, so return details are sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'camera', which is intuitive from tool name. Description could clarify it's a camera ID but schema coverage is 0% and no additional semantics added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it gets the auto-follow state for one camera. The description distinguishes it from 'set' sibling and specifies the camera type condition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for reading state, but lacks explicit comparison to 'set' tool. Provides context on when it's meaningful (360° cameras with panLimit>0) and error handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: errors per camera are captured in the 'error' field instead of raising exceptions, and the return fields are listed. This goes beyond minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return values, error handling. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains its behavior, return fields, and error handling. It covers what an agent needs to know for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining that the check covers all cameras without needing parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'health check' and resource 'ALL configured cameras in one call'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on individual cameras or settings by emphasizing bulk operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says it 'Replaces 4+ separate MCP calls for dashboard use', indicating when to use it for aggregated overview. However, it does not specify scenarios where this tool should not be used, but the context from sibling tools makes it clear that individual checks are alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation behavior ('Update[s]', 'unspecified fields are preserved'), return format, and a historical bug. It does not explicitly state authorization needs, rate limits, or idempotency, but covers key behavioral aspects like error conditions for distance >8.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately long but efficiently structured: purpose first, then key constraint, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though some historical notes could be condensed. Still, it remains focused and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema provided (but noted as existing), the description covers the return format and key behavioral details. The hardware constraint, version bug, and parameter ranges provide a complete picture for an agent to invoke correctly. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. Each parameter (mode, sensitivity, distance) is explained with accepted values, ranges, mapping to Bosch API fields, and version-specific behavior. This goes well beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Update[s] the intrusion detection configuration for one Gen2 camera.' It specifies the resource (intrusion detection config), action (update), and scope (one Gen2 camera), distinguishing it from siblings like bosch_camera_intrusion_get (retrieval). The Gen2-only constraint further clarifies its domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly notes Gen2-only requirement ('raises hardware_unsupported for Gen1 cameras') and 'At least one parameter must be provided.' It also provides version-specific advice (v1.6.0 vs v1.6.1). However, it does not compare with sibling set tools (e.g., motion_set) to guide when to use this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses read-modify-write behavior, the fact that both fields are always sent on PUT (Bosch API resets omitted fields), and the return value. This is highly transparent for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Six sentences, each providing essential information. Front-loaded with main action. No wasted words. Important details are included without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, read-modify-write, API quirk, Gen2 requirement), the description covers all necessary context. Output schema exists, but description still succinctly notes return value. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that glass_break and fire_alarm are boolean, at least one required, and how they merge with current config. Does not explain camera parameter, but that is self-explanatory as device identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it updates glass-break and fire-alarm detection for Gen2 cameras. The verb 'update' and specific resource 'audio detection' are explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like bosch_camera_audio_detection_get (read) and bosch_camera_audio_set (general audio settings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states it is a Gen2 Audio-Plus-only feature and raises hardware_unsupported for Gen1. Specifies that at least one of glass_break or fire_alarm must be provided. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like bosch_camera_audio_detection_get, though the usage is clear from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses: hardware unsupported error, range constraints, persistence of unspecified fields, and return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise but slightly dense; could be broken into bullet points, but all information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers prerequisites, errors, constraints, behavior with unspecified fields, and return fields. Output schema exists, but description sufficiently describes return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains parameter roles, optional nature, range (0-100), and at-least-one requirement, adding substantial meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets microphone and/or speaker levels for Gen2 cameras with specific feature support, distinguishing it from siblings like bosch_camera_audio_get which retrieves levels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly specifies conditions (featureSupport.sound=true), raises hardware_unsupported otherwise, and requires at least one of mic_level/speaker_level. Lacks explicit alternatives but provides clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses destructive impact, account-unpairing, the need to re-commission the camera, confirmation requirement, the error behavior, and the API endpoint called.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the critical DESTRUCTIVE label, and every sentence earns its place: what it does, why it is dangerous, what prerequisite must be set, and the exact API call.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this tool's destructive nature, the description covers every essential bit an agent needs: purpose, side effects, required confirm flag, error when not set, and the underlying endpoint. Output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the confirm parameter thoroughly—boolean required or invalid_argument is raised—and connects camera to the API path. It never explicitly defines what value `camera` should take, but the parameter name and endpoint context make this mostly inferable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names an exact operation—factory-reset one camera via an explicit API endpoint—and clearly differentiates itself from the many camera siblings by calling the operation DESTRUCTIVE and noting it unpairs the camera from the Bosch account. This makes it unambiguous compared to soft_reset and other non-destructive tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly conveys the consequence of use (unpairing and full re-commissioning), which tells an agent when this is appropriate. It does not name an explicit alternative like soft_reset, but the destructive-consequence context provides clear usage guidance without needing exclusions spell out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: listen-only limitation, optional speaker level setting, connection flow (REMOTE then LOCAL), and URL construction with enableaudio=1. It also notes the server does not play audio, providing complete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is detailed and well-structured with paragraphs and a bullet list of arguments. It is longer than minimal but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity and that output schema exists, the description appropriately explains the return value (RTSPS URL) and the complete workflow. No critical gaps remain for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description explains each parameter: camera (case-insensitive name), duration (default 60s, embedded as maxSessionDuration), and speaker_level (optional 0-100). It adds practical context beyond the schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as opening a listen-audio session tunnel and returning an RTSPS URL. It explicitly states 'listen-only' and distinguishes from other intercom functions. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises that the tool is listen-only and that true two-way talk is not supported, referencing the Python CLI limitation. It details the intended usage flow but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool in favor of siblings, though the context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the protocol (TCP port 443), timeout (1.5 s), and return values (reachable, ip, latency_ms). This is sufficient transparency for a simple network probe. A minor gap: it doesn't explain behavior on timeout or invalid IP, but the return schema indicates those cases would likely return reachable=false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: three sentences covering functionality, parameter usage, and return format. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core probe action, then rationale, then output shape.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (implied by context), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value. Sibling tools are numerous but none overlap in functionality, so no further differentiation needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains that 'camera' is resolved from bosch_config.json, while 'lan_ip' is a raw IP. It also implies mutual exclusivity by saying 'Pass either... or...'. This adds essential semantic value beyond the schema's basic type declarations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool probes camera LAN reachability on TCP port 443 with a 1.5s timeout. This is distinct from all sibling tools, which are about camera features like audio, motion, or streaming. The verb 'probe' and resource 'camera reachability' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises when to use this tool: diagnosing cloud-down situations. It explains the consequence: if reachable, local writes (privacy/light) will work without waiting for Bosch infrastructure. This provides clear context and guidance, differentiating it from other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses read-modify-write pattern, side effect of forcing scheduleStatus, specific HTTP error codes (hardware_unsupported, api_unreachable), and that only outdoor cameras with LED light are supported. Thoroughly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is about 150 words, highly concise. Opens with purpose, then explains behavior pattern, constraints, and parameter list. No redundant sentences. Every sentence adds necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, constraints, side effects, error conditions, and parameter formats. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Provides a list of all five parameters with brief but meaningful descriptions: camera (case-insensitive), on_time/off_time (format HH:MM[:SS]), light_on_motion (boolean), darkness_threshold (0.0-1.0). Adds value beyond schema titles, though could include more detail like time format validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Starts with 'Update the LED lighting schedule for one outdoor (Eyes) camera.' Clearly specifies verb (update), resource (LED lighting schedule), and scope (outdoor camera with LED light). Distinguishes from siblings like bosch_camera_lighting_schedule_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains when to use: to update the schedule. Notes that at least one optional field must be provided and that writing any field forces scheduleStatus to FOLLOW_SCHEDULE. Mentions availability constraints and error codes. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but conditions are implied by error scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses endpoint variations, body syntax, error types, and the fact that Gen2 siren is 75 dB and plays for a configured duration. It lacks details on idempotency or whether multiple triggers stack, but overall provides good behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points and parameter args. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose. While every sentence adds value, it is longer than necessary; a slight trim could improve conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple camera models, error conditions, duration sibling), the description is thorough. It covers behavior, error cases, and parameter details. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter beyond type and title: camera is case-insensitive, stop sends the stop variant with specific body examples and use case for cancelling Gen2 panic alarms.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first line clearly states the tool triggers or stops the indoor siren on a camera. It distinguishes from siblings like bosch_camera_siren_duration_set by mentioning that tool for duration changes, and it specifies it is for indoor models only, differentiating from outdoor-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when/when-not guidance: it lists endpoints for different camera models, notes that outdoor cameras return HTTP 442, raises hardware_unsupported for outdoor, and mentions privacy_blocked for privacy mode. It also directs to use bosch_camera_siren_duration_set for duration changes, and explains the stop parameter's use for cancelling active alarms.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: immediate error for unsupported cameras, local vs cloud path preference, brightness mapping, fallback mechanism, and wallwasher RGB limitation. This goes well beyond the bare minimum.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two clear paragraphs. The first sentence states the core action, followed by bullet-like details. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisites, error behavior, parameter details, and edge cases. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'enabled' parameter's mapping to brightness 100/0, the 'prefer_local' parameter's effect on execution path and fallback, and implicitly the 'camera' parameter. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Turn the camera's spotlight on or off.' It specifies the verb and resource directly, and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning spotlight control and camera compatibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies when to use the tool: only for cameras with 'featureSupport.light=true', and mentions immediate error for unsupported cameras. It implicitly tells when not to use (for non-spotlight tasks), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'bosch_camera_light_set' vs other light-related tools (none exist among siblings).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a destructive full replace, that empty list clears zones, and specifies the zone format with normalized coordinates. This goes beyond the input schema by explaining behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, an output schema exists, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter format, and behavioral notes. No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'zones' parameter: each zone is an object with x, y, w, h normalized 0.0-1.0. It also clarifies that the 'camera' parameter identifies one camera. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool replaces ALL motion-detection zones for one camera with a given list. It uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('motion-detection zones'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like bosch_camera_motion_zones_clear and bosch_camera_motion_zones_get by clarifying it's a full replace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'This is a full replace, not a merge — pass every zone you want to keep.' It also explains that passing an empty list is equivalent to clearing all zones, referencing the sibling tool bosch_camera_motion_zones_clear. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes read-modify-write behavior, preservation of existing fields, no trigger side effect, and detailed error cases. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden, and it does so thoroughly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise yet comprehensive: front-loaded purpose, technical details, errors, and parameter list in a clear structure with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, side effects, error handling, and compatibility. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Complete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds full semantics: camera (case-insensitive name), seconds (range 10-300), and context for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool sets siren alarm duration for Gen2 Indoor II cameras only, specifies verb 'Set' and resource, and distinguishes from sibling bosch_camera_siren_trigger by stating it does not trigger the siren.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use (before triggering), directs to call bosch_camera_siren_trigger afterwards, and lists error conditions that guide when not to use (e.g., unsupported hardware).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Bosch Smart Home Camera MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![Bosch Smart Home Camera MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mosandlt/Bosch-Smart-Home-Camera-Tool-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mosandlt/Bosch-Smart-Home-Camera-Tool-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Bosch Smart Home Camera MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mosandlt/Bosch-Smart-Home-Camera-Tool-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mosandlt/Bosch-Smart-Home-Camera-Tool-MCP)

shields.io Endpoint

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

[![Bosch Smart Home Camera MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://img.shields.io/endpoint?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglama.ai%2Fmcp%2Fservers%2Fmosandlt%2FBosch-Smart-Home-Camera-Tool-MCP%2Fbadges%2Fshields.json)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mosandlt/Bosch-Smart-Home-Camera-Tool-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mosandlt/Bosch-Smart-Home-Camera-Tool-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server