Send the OFF command to an authorized device using its public ID, so MCP hosts can remotely power it down.
Shorthand for sending the OFF command to a device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | Yes | The device's public id, e.g. dev_a1b2c3. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the command sent ('OFF command') but says nothing about permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the device is already off, which is 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It gets straight to the point without unnecessary repetition or delay.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter command, the description plus schema is enough to call the tool correctly, but it omits usage routing to send_command and any behavioral context. Given no annotations and no output schema, it leaves notable gaps for an agent choosing between siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single deviceId parameter with an example value, and the description adds no further parameter meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: sending the OFF command to a device, which distinguishes it from turn_device_on. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling send_command, which could also send OFF, leaving the agent to infer that this is the specialized shorthand.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'Shorthand' implies the tool is a convenience wrapper for sending an OFF command, giving an implied use case. Yet it never says when to use this versus send_command or turn_device_on, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.