guarded-sql-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search devices

search_devices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find devices by site, status, or operating system, and return hostname, site, OS, status, IP, and last check-in time for inventory and troubleshooting.

Instructions

Search devices by site, status and operating system. Returns hostname, site, OS, status, IP and last check-in time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site`	No	Site code as returned by list_sites, e.g. "north-branch".
`limit`	No	Maximum rows to return (1-100, default 25).
`status`	No	Device status.
`os_contains`	No	Substring of the operating system name, e.g. "Windows". Matched literally: % and _ have no special meaning.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes	More rows matched than were returned.
`rowCount`	Yes	Rows in this response.
`truncated`	Yes	Long values were cut or rows dropped to fit the response size limit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0Oct 1, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "hasMore": {
+      "description": "More rows matched than were returned.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "rowCount": {
+      "description": "Rows in this response.",
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "rows": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "hostname": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "ip": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "last_seen_at": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "os": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "site": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "truncated": {
+      "description": "Long values were cut or rows dropped to fit the response size limit.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "rowCount",
+    "hasMore",
+    "truncated",
+    "rows"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set (hostname, site, OS, status, IP, last check-in), which is useful context, but says nothing about ordering, total counts, or paging behavior beyond the schema's limit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, filters first and return shape second, with zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With a 100%-documented schema, full annotations and an output schema, the description needs only to state purpose and filters, which it does. It is slightly incomplete in not routing the agent away from the overlapping stale_devices sibling.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so site, status, os_contains and limit are all documented with formats and constraints in the schema. The description only restates the filter names and adds no syntax or matching nuance the schema does not already carry.

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 a specific verb (search) and resource (devices) plus the filter dimensions. An agent can distinguish it from get_device (single device) and list_sites, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling stale_devices, which is also a device-listing tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The filter list implies when this tool is useful (you have a site/status/OS to narrow by), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over stale_devices or get_device, and no statement of prerequisites or result limits beyond what the schema says.

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

Deploy Server