Retrieve the validation result for a specific device after a template validate job completes. Use this to check per-device status and errors.
Get the per-device result of a template validate job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | Yes | ||
| validate_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose read-only nature, potential side effects, rate limits, or required permissions. The agent cannot infer safety or constraints from this minimal text.
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 short sentence (12 words), concise and front-loaded. However, it omits valuable additional context that could be included without harming conciseness, such as parameter purpose or usage notes.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. The agent lacks information about return format, prerequisites, and possible errors. A simple getter still needs more context for effective use.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description does not explain what validate_id or device_id represent. The agent must guess their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: getting per-device results of a template validate job. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource precisely, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_template_validate_status (overall status) and get_template_preview_result_by_device (preview).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., after a validate job completes) or exclude cases like overall status. The agent must rely on the tool name alone for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.