get_deviceRetrieve one device by hostname, including its site and the assigned person's name and email.
Get one device by hostname, including its site and the name and email of the person it is assigned to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes | Device hostname, e.g. "nb-lt-001". Case-insensitive. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and with no output schema the description is the only source of return-shape information — it discloses that the site and assignee name/email are included. It stops short of describing missing/not-found behavior or the full field set.
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 sentence that front-loads the action (get one device by hostname) and then appends the return contents. No filler, no repetition of the title.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key returned fields adequately. Slightly more on not-found handling or the remaining device fields would make it fully self-sufficient.
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?
There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the pattern, maxLength and case-insensitivity all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing to the hostname semantics beyond naming it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource: fetch a single device keyed by hostname. The description also names what comes back (site, assignee name/email), which implicitly separates it from the plural search_devices/list_sites siblings, but it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the required hostname parameter signals 'use when you already know the hostname.' There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_devices, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.