AiLinkAny

Inspect live permissions and capabilities

get_configuration

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this for an account-level check when the user asks what computer-control capabilities are available, which permissions or tools can be used, which computers are paired, or which client versions were last reported without naming one computer. Its device inventory intentionally does not probe every DeviceSession; active devices therefore use connection_state=UNKNOWN and realtime_status_available=false here. Use list_devices when current online/offline state is actually needed. If the user names a computer, call system_capabilities instead.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_configuration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`devices`	Yes
`privacy`	Yes
`product`	Yes
`next_step`	Yes
`account_tools`	Yes
`computer_tools`	Yes
`selection_rule`	Yes
`server_version`	Yes
`subscription_plan`	Yes
`selection_required`	Yes
`subscription_active`	Yes
`subscription_usage_used`	Yes
`subscription_can_execute`	Yes
`subscription_usage_limit`	Yes
`subscription_usage_remaining`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only/idempotent profile, yet the description goes further by disclosing a real output caveat: the device inventory intentionally does not probe every DeviceSession, so active devices surface as connection_state=UNKNOWN with realtime_status_available=false. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know to avoid misreporting a device as offline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each carrying load: purpose, behavioral caveat, first alternative, second alternative. It is front-loaded correctly, though the opening sentence packs four separate user intents into one long clause chain, which costs it a point on parseability rather than on waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the definition instead spends its space on the two things that matter: when to pick this over its siblings and what its device data does not tell you. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. It cannot add syntactic meaning beyond an empty schema, and its condition list serves as selection guidance rather than parameter explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (an account-level inspection of computer-control capabilities) and enumerates the concrete answerable sub-questions: available capabilities, usable permissions/tools, paired computers, last-reported client versions. The final clause ("without naming one computer") delimits it against the per-machine sibling, so it is distinguishable without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit routing rules in both directions: use list_devices when current online/offline state is actually needed, and call system_capabilities if the user names a computer. That is a when-to-use plus two named alternatives with the selecting condition, not merely implied usage.

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

All AiLinkAny tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?