Register a new digital signage device by providing name, tags, location, and activation code.
Registers a new device.
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": "postdevice"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestBody | No | Device | |
| activation_code | No | Activation code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.20Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Registers a new device.' It does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, or what happens on success, which is insufficient for a creation tool.
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 extremely concise (2 words) but at the cost of missing essential context. It is underspecified for a tool with nested objects and many fields.
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 complexity (nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the registration process, required fields, or outcomes.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, so it does not improve parameter understanding.
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 'Registers a new device' clearly states the verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like postdevicegroup or putdevice, which also involve device registration or modification.
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. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.