Gear MCP Server

Device with live values

get_device

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single IoT device's current endpoint values, battery level, and open alarm count by device ID to inspect live status and identify active issues.

Instructions

One device with the current value of each of its endpoints (number and display text with unit), battery and open alarm count.

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": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that values are the *current* (live) snapshot plus battery and open alarm count — but says nothing about error handling or freshness/staleness of the readings.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most useful detail (current endpoint values, battery, alarms) comes first. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (number, display text with unit, battery, open alarm count). However, it omits device metadata, not-found behavior, and any detail about the required identifier for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single parameter device_id has 0% schema description coverage (no description, only an integer with exclusiveMinimum 0), and the description never mentions the parameter, its format, or where to source it. It does suggest 'one device' rather than a set, but that is thin compensation.

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?

States precisely what is returned: a single device with the current value of each endpoint, battery, and open alarm count. That scope implicitly separates it from list_devices and find_devices, though it never says 'retrieve'/names the sibling distinction explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus list_devices or find_devices, no mention of how to obtain a valid device_id, and no statement about behavior when the device is unknown. The agent must infer the whole selection story from the name.

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

Deploy Server