Control simulated household devices such as lights, fans, TVs, ACs, and dishwashers to test smart-home commands and verify expected outcomes.
Control a simulated household device (light, fan, TV, AC, dishwasher).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | ||
| command | No | TURN_ON |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| device | Yes | ||
| command | Yes | ||
| success | No | ||
| reported_state | Yes | ||
| speakable_summary | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one useful fact — that devices are 'simulated', not real hardware — but says nothing about what commands are valid, whether state persists, whether actions are reversible, or what errors look like.
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?
A single sentence with the resource and its device scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of richer content.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the agent still lacks the two things it needs most: the accepted command vocabulary and the boundary against power_turn_on_and_verify. For a state-changing control tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists plausible device values (light, fan, TV, AC, dishwasher), partially covering the 'device' parameter, but gives no hint at all about valid 'command' values beyond the schema's default of TURN_ON, leaving half the parameters semantically undefined.
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 gives a specific verb ('Control') and resource ('simulated household device') and enumerates the device types, so the scope is clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling power_turn_on_and_verify, which also appears to control device power, leaving real overlap unresolved.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as power_turn_on_and_verify despite the obvious overlap in controlling a device. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.