Retrieve the current state of a WiZ bulb by name or IP address, including power, brightness, color, and scene. Use it to check bulb settings before making changes.
Get the current state of a WiZ bulb (power, brightness, color, scene, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Bulb name or IP address to query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the set of returned fields (power, brightness, color, scene), which is useful, but says nothing about behavior when a bulb is unreachable, latency, or whether state is cached.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core purpose comes first. The trailing "(power, brightness, color, scene, etc.)" is informative but the "etc." leaves the return scope slightly open-ended.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by naming the state fields returned, and the single input parameter is fully documented in the schema. Remaining gaps (error/offline behavior, exact response shape) are minor for a simple state-read tool.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Bulb name or IP address to query"), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about target formatting or name-vs-IP resolution, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ("Get the current state of a WiZ bulb") and enumerates the state facets returned, making it easy to distinguish from setters like set_color or turn_on. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the read-vs-write distinction against the other tools is obvious.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read-side tool to call before deciding whether to change anything. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to alternatives such as list_lights or discover_lights for enumeration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.