Set the RGB color of one or more WiZ bulbs by providing target, red, green, and blue values. Optionally adjust brightness.
Set the RGB color of one or more WiZ bulbs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | Yes | Blue channel 0-255 | |
| g | Yes | Green channel 0-255 | |
| r | Yes | Red channel 0-255 | |
| target | Yes | Bulb name, IP address, or "all" to target every discovered bulb | |
| brightness | No | Brightness level 1-100 (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it is a mutation of physical device state, yet reversibility, permission/auth needs, behavior for unreachable bulbs, and whether brightness is reset are all unstated. The only real trait conveyed is multi-target scope via 'one or more'.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the property being set, and the affected scope with no filler.
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?
A five-parameter state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema should say more about side effects and failure modes; the description is essentially just a title restatement plus scope. The fully documented schema rescues the parameter side but not the behavioral side.
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 description coverage is 100% — r/g/b ranges, the 1-100 brightness bound, and the target formats (name, IP, "all") are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?
Specific verb ('Set') plus resource ('RGB color') and target scope ('one or more WiZ bulbs'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_temperature (color temperature) and set_scene (preset scenes), so an agent can route without opening a schema.
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 only implied by the name: an agent can infer it sets a custom RGB color, but nothing states when to prefer this over set_temperature or set_scene, nor any preconditions (bulb on, discovered, etc.). No exclusions or alternatives are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.