Gear MCP Server

Find devices

find_devices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search for IoT devices by name, DevEUI, IMEI, or serial number across all accessible facilities or within a specified facility.

Instructions

Find devices by name, network address (DevEUI, IMEI...) or serial number, across all facilities the user can see or within one.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_devices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`facility_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful permission-scope context ('facilities the user can see'), but does not disclose result limits, pagination, or return behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Search criteria and scope are presented compactly, making it immediately usable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter, read-only search tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. It lacks details about result limits, pagination, or output shape, but no output schema exists and the core invocation semantics are covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: 'query' is explained as a name, DevEUI, IMEI, or serial number, and 'facility_id' is implied by searching 'within one' facility. It stops short of naming facility_id explicitly or describing result behavior, but meaningfully compensates for the schema gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find devices') and enumerates concrete search criteria: name, DevEUI, IMEI, or serial number. It clearly implies a search-style tool rather than a plain list, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_devices or get_device.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains the searchable identifiers and the facility scope, which implies when the tool is useful. However, it never states when to use this instead of list_devices, get_device, or list_facilities, and gives no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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

Deploy Server