list_devices
List this account’s registered phones, viewports and last-seen times. Never returns device credentials.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
List this account’s registered phones, viewports and last-seen times. Never returns device credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields and explicitly states that device credentials are never returned, which matters for an agent reasoning about data exposure.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The content description comes first and the security caveat second, both earning their place.
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 list tool with strong annotations, the description covers what is returned and the credential exclusion. It does not mention pagination or result formatting, a minor gap given there is no output schema.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (registered phones, viewports, last-seen times) scoped to 'this account.' The device focus implicitly separates it from list_profiles/get_profile, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose—call it to enumerate this account's devices—but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against siblings like delivery_status or show_pairing_code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.