Set the Apple TV volume to a specific percentage from 0 to 100 on devices that support volume control.
Set absolute volume percent when the device supports volume control.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| percent | Yes | Absolute volume percent from 0 to 100. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| volume_percent | No | ||
| requested_percent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), consistent with setting an absolute value. The description's added value is the capability precondition ('when the device supports volume control'), but it says nothing about failure behavior when unsupported or whether the call blocks.
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 efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded and the capability condition trailing. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably a touch sparse for a routing-sensitive volume tool.
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 a simple one-parameter schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential capability caveat. The only meaningful omission is disambiguation from apple_tv_adjust_volume.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented with a 0-100 range and 'Absolute volume percent' description. The tool description adds no syntax, unit, or boundary detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Set absolute volume percent'), immediately conveying the operation. 'Absolute' implicitly contrasts with the relative sibling apple_tv_adjust_volume, but that sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the distinction itself.
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?
It gives one condition for use ('when the device supports volume control'), which is useful gating context. However, it never names apple_tv_adjust_volume as the alternative for relative changes, leaving the key routing decision (absolute vs. relative volume) to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.