Lists computers paired with this machine and shows whether each is reachable and connected directly or via relay.
List the computers paired with this machine, whether each is reachable now, and whether the connection is direct or relayed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that results include live reachability and connection type (direct vs relayed), which tells the agent the call surfaces current network state rather than static configuration.
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 filler; every clause conveys distinct, actionable information (inventory, reachability, connection mode).
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so for the three key fields. It could go slightly further on output shape (e.g., per-host naming/grouping) or latency, but it is adequate for an agent to call correctly.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly implies no inputs are required.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('computers paired with this machine'), and it names the returned attributes (reachability, direct vs relayed). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling use_host, so it stops short of a 5.
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 purpose implies when to use it (checking paired-device inventory and connectivity), but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over use_host or what to do after obtaining a reachable host. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed