Loading ToolBench
A Model Context Protocol server for controlling Samsung SmartThings devices, specifically Samsung TVs.
Samsung SmartThings MCP server has 9 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant quality gaps prevent a higher score. All tools are visible in the source code with explicit Tool() registrations. Naming follows verb-first convention (list_, get_, turn_, change_, mute_) which is good. However, descriptions are inconsistent in length and specificity. Input schemas are present for all tools with proper type definitions, but output schemas are entirely undocumented, tools return TextContent responses but the actual structure of returned data (device objects, status objects, command results) is never documented. Parameters are minimally described; many lack detail on expected format, constraints, or dependencies. Error handling is absent from tool definitions, no guidance on what can go wrong or how agents should recover. The tool set is well-composed (single responsibility per tool, clear chaining via device_id), but lacks the depth needed for production agent use. Baseline comparison: average tool description in this server is ~70-90 chars (below the 194-char baseline for A+ tools); no tools document their return types.
Change Samsung TV channel
Change Samsung TV input source
Change Samsung TV volume
Get detailed information about a specific device
Get the current status of a device
List all SmartThings devices
List all TV devices in SmartThings
Output schemas are completely undocumented. Tools return TextContent but the LLM has no visibility into what fields or data structure the response contains (e.g., what does list_devices actually return? Is it a list of dicts with device_id, name, status? Does it include capabilities? Pagination info?). Without documented output schemas, agents cannot reliably extract data for downstream tool calls or inform the user of results.
No error handling guidance. Tool definitions provide no recovery hints for common failure modes (e.g., device not found, API rate limit, invalid volume value). When a tool fails, the LLM has no actionable next steps, it cannot know if the error is retryable, user-fixable, or fatal.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | D | 52 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Mute or unmute Samsung TV
Turn Samsung TV on or off
Parameter descriptions are minimal and lack actionable constraints. 'The device ID' does not explain format (UUID? alphanumeric string?), how to obtain it (from list_devices output?), or what happens if invalid. 'Channel number or name' for change_tv_channel is ambiguous, the tool accepts both but provides no guidance on format (string representation of integer? 1-999 range? named channels like 'HBO'?). LLMs will guess.
No permission or scope declarations. The source code initializes with an access_token but tools provide no indication of what permissions they require (e.g., read:devices, write:device, control:tv). This prevents least-privilege agent configuration and unclear audit trails.
Missing tool annotations. No tools declare idempotent, readOnly, or destructive hints. Write operations like turn_tv_on_off, change_tv_volume, etc. should include destructiveHint=true to signal to agents that these are state-modifying. Read operations should include readOnlyHint=true to clarify safety. These annotations enable intelligent agent planning.
No confirmation/dry-run for destructive operations. turn_tv_on_off, change_tv_volume, mute_tv, and similar write tools execute immediately without any confirmation step. An agent mistake could turn off a user's TV during a meeting. No patterns for confirmation_request or dry_run are present.
No pagination support. list_devices and list_tv_devices have no limit, offset, or next_cursor parameters. If a user has hundreds of devices, the response could be massive, exhausting context windows or hitting API limits. Tools should accept page/limit parameters and document max results.
Description length and detail vary widely. list_devices, list_tv_devices, get_device_info, and get_device_status have descriptions ~60-70 chars, which is minimal. The 194-char baseline for A+ tools suggests these should be more prescriptive (when to call, what it returns, dependencies). Example: 'Get detailed information about a specific device' could be 'Retrieve the detailed device profile (name, type, capabilities, status) for a specific device. Call this after list_devices to get the device_id. Returns device object with id, name, deviceTypeName, capabilities, and components.'