get_channel_settingsRetrieves the current setting for each speed-controllable channel—profile, fixed duty, or default—across all devices or a specified one.
What each speed-controllable channel is set to: a profile (by name), a fixed duty, or the default. Covers all devices unless one is given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | Device uid, uid prefix (8+ chars) or exact device name, as shown by list_devices |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the result spans all devices unless narrowed, and each channel resolves into one of three setting kinds, which tells the agent what to expect in the payload. It omits error behavior for an unknown device identifier, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, and the front-loaded clause states what is returned before the scoping caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating the three setting kinds. What it does not convey is the result shape (e.g. how channels are keyed or ordered), leaving a small gap for an agent constructing downstream logic.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description contributes beyond the schema: it discloses that omitting the device parameter defaults to all devices, a default the schema's device description does not state. That closes the only real ambiguity in a single-parameter tool.
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 precisely what the tool returns: the current setting of each speed-controllable channel, enumerated as profile-by-name, fixed duty, or default. That is a specific resource with its value domain spelled out. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_status or list_profiles, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
"Covers all devices unless one is given" gives scoping guidance, implying when to pass the device parameter versus omitting it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_status, list_profiles, or get_mode, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.