Fetches detailed information for a specific reader by its READERKEY from LenelS2 S2 NetBox access-control systems. Provide the unique key to get reader configuration and status.
Returns the details of a single reader for a given READERKEY (wraps NBAPI GetReader).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| READERKEY | Yes | Required. The unique READERKEY of the reader to retrieve. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the operation ('Returns the details') and identifies the underlying backend call ('wraps NBAPI GetReader'), which adds useful context, but it does not mention read-only behavior, error conditions, or output format.
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action, target, and required input. There is no superfluous text or repetition of schema details.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter getter, and the description combined with the schema provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly. However, since there is no output schema, the description could be slightly more explicit about what fields or object shape are contained in the returned 'details'.
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 100%, so the parameter READERKEY is already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter name but does not add any semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline score of 3.
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 states the specific action ('Returns the details') and the target resource ('a single reader') with the required identifier READERKEY. The singular 'single reader' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_readers tool without needing to inspect schemas.
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?
The description implies the usage context: you call this when you have a READERKEY and need one reader's details. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_readers or any other sibling, nor does it mention alternative tools for reader-related queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.