List the device token pairs this connection can drive (name, sid, region, online). Call this FIRST; when several devices exist, ask the user which one to use and pass its name or sid as the "device" argument on subsequent tool calls. Tokens are NOT included — use device_detail when the user asks for connect instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tokens are NOT included, which is a key behavioral constraint, and implies a read-only listing by describing returned fields (name, sid, region, online). It does not mention side effects, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is sufficient; the disclosure of token omission adds real value beyond the empty schema.
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?
Three sentences with no waste: the first states the action and output fields, the second gives the workflow guidance, and the third clarifies a crucial exclusion and points to the sibling. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the return fields, the token omission, the 'call first' directive, and how to use the result on subsequent calls. There is no gap that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameters, instead focusing on the output and usage workflow.
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 and resource: 'List the device token pairs this connection can drive' with fields name, sid, region, online. Differentiates from siblings by explicitly saying tokens are not included and directing to device_detail for connect instructions, so the agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call this FIRST, tells the agent to ask the user which device and pass its name or sid as the 'device' argument on subsequent calls. Also explicitly names device_detail as the alternative when connect instructions are needed, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
