Retrieve real-time device health and network details from an IoTaWatt energy monitor, including firmware version, uptime, WiFi signal, IP, memory, AC frequency, and log ranges.
IoTaWatt device status: firmware version, uptime, WiFi SSID/RSSI/IP, heap memory, AC frequency, and data log ranges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context by listing exactly what status information is returned (firmware version, uptime, WiFi SSID/RSSI/IP, heap memory, AC frequency, data log ranges), which is valuable because there is no output 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase names a concrete piece of status information, so no words are wasted.
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 parameterless read-only status tool with no output schema, the description provides the necessary return-value detail by listing the status fields. Annotations cover the safety profile, and no parameter or return explanation is missing.
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 the baseline of 4 applies per the scoring rules. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids irrelevant parameter discussion.
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 identifies a specific resource (IoTaWatt device status) and enumerates the exact fields returned (firmware, uptime, WiFi, heap, AC frequency, log ranges), making the purpose clear. However, it uses a noun phrase without an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_config or snapshot.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_config, snapshot, or query. The usage is implied by the name and field list (check device health/status), but no conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.