Lyngdorf MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set input source' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if changes are reversible, or any side effects (e.g., audio interruption). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and target.

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?

Given the tool's apparent complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'input source' is, provide usage examples, detail error conditions, or describe the result of the operation. For a tool that likely changes device state, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'source' documented as 'Source number'. The description 'Set input source' implies the parameter's purpose but adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., valid ranges, what the number represents). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Set input source' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'setSource' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the action ('set') and resource ('input source'), it lacks specificity about what an 'input source' means in this context (e.g., audio input, media source) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'getSource' or 'listSources'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be powered on), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools such as 'getSource' (for checking current source) or 'listSources' (for available options). This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.