Dr. Dabber Switch 2 MCP

Set Device Name

set_device_name

Assign a custom name to your Dr. Dabber Switch 2 vaporizer using 1–29 printable ASCII characters.

Instructions

Rename the Switch 2. Accepts 1 to 29 printable ASCII characters (0x20-0x7E).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "set_device_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds no side effects or operational context beyond the input constraints already present in the schema. Missing details like whether the device must be connected or if the change persists.

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 short sentences with no extraneous information. The most important information (the action and key constraint) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 rename tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential constraint. However, it omits whether the device must be connected, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 description mentions the allowed character set (printable ASCII) and length range, adding some human-readable meaning. However, schema coverage is nearly 100% already, so the added value is minimal. The description does not specify the parameter name, relying on 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 tool renames the Switch 2, which is a specific resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_auto_shutoff or set_light_brightness, all of which modify different aspects of the same device.

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 usage for renaming but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned, but the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer context from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.