List all HWID devices across every user in the Remnawave panel to audit and manage hardware-bound access.
List all HWID devices across all users
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "hwid_devices_list_all"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' makes the read-only nature clear and 'across all users' adds scope, but there is no mention of pagination, return shape, or any other noteworthy behavior. It is adequate but not richly transparent.
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 word adds meaning: 'List', 'all', 'HWID devices', and 'across all users' are all necessary and sufficient.
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 zero-parameter list operation, the description is nearly complete: it conveys the action, resource, and scope. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the fact that a list operation's response type is generally inferable, though an explicit note on return format or pagination would make it fully complete.
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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is left undocumented.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('HWID devices'), and scope ('across all users'). The 'all' and 'across all users' language clearly distinguishes it from the sibling `hwid_devices_list`, so an agent can tell which list tool matches the need.
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 scope 'across all users' implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as `hwid_devices_list` for user-scoped listing. Usage is understandable but left mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.