Retrieves full details for a single endpoint in an Action1 RMM tenant using its organization and endpoint IDs, letting AI assistants inspect device information.
Get full details of one endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | Yes | ||
| endpoint_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden, but it adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what 'full details' includes, whether it errors on unknown IDs, or permission requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse rather than structured, but concision itself is not the problem here.
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?
No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the agent without parameter meaning, permissions, or error behavior for a detail-retrieval tool. It is inadequate given the 0% schema coverage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both required parameters (org_id, endpoint_id), and the description adds no meaning about their format or relationship. It fails to compensate for the documentation gap.
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 and resource ('Get full details of one endpoint'), and the singular 'one endpoint' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_endpoints. It does not, however, differentiate from other single-resource siblings such as get_endpoint_status or get_endpoint_missing_updates.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_endpoint_status, get_endpoint_missing_updates, or list_endpoints. The reader must infer that this returns the general record while siblings return filtered views.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.