Send a task to the connected device over the debug relay and wait synchronously for its result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | task type the device client understands, e.g. "echo" | |
| device | No | target device: name or sid from list_devices. Omit only when the account has exactly one device. | |
| payload | No | task payload object | |
| timeout_ms | No | how long to wait for the device (default 60000, max 120000) |
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 are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool waits synchronously for a result, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects, failure modes, or whether the operation is destructive, leaving some ambiguity.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and follows with the waiting behavior. It is concise with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters. It explains the synchronous wait but does not describe the result format or error handling, which would be useful but are not critical for a basic understanding.
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?
All four parameters have descriptions with meaningful details: 'type' includes an example, 'device' explains how to reference it, 'payload' is identified as an object, and 'timeout_ms' specifies default and maximum values. The only minor gap is the vague 'task payload object' description, but overall coverage is strong.
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 clearly states the tool's function: sending a task to a connected device over the debug relay and waiting synchronously for the result. It uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('task') and is distinct from sibling tools like device_ping or list_tasks.
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 implies when to use the tool (whenever a task needs to be executed on a device), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for choosing this over other tools. No clear 'instead of' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
