Powers down one or more WiZ smart bulbs by name, IP address, or all discovered bulbs. Use it to switch off lights locally via UDP.
Turn off one or more WiZ bulbs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Bulb name, IP address, or "all" to target every discovered bulb |
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 burden. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a bulb is already off, whether it returns per-bulb status, or whether targeting 'all' has side effects.
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 clause with no filler or redundancy. Every word 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?
The tool is simple and the schema fully documents the only parameter, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description would benefit from noting the effect on already-off bulbs or the bulk-targeting behavior.
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%, and the single required 'target' parameter is fully documented in the schema (name, IP, or "all"). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (turn off) and resource (WiZ bulbs), so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like turn_on or toggle, though the verb itself makes the distinction fairly 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?
No guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as toggle (which likely flips state) or turn_on. No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer selection rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.