get_deviceRetrieve detailed device information by ID, including capability values, settings, and availability status, after finding the ID via list or search.
Get detailed information about a specific device by ID, including all capability values, settings, and availability status. Use list_devices or search_devices first to find the device ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device ID (UUID format) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the response covers 'all capability values, settings, and availability status,' which is beyond the annotation's safety profile. No contradictions are present.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the main action and resource, and includes a useful usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema 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 tool has only one parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool does, what data is returned, and how to obtain the ID. No additional context is necessary for correct invocation.
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 coverage for the single parameter 'id' is 100%, with the schema already describing it as a UUID. The description merely repeats 'by ID' and references finding the ID, adding no new semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific device by ID'), and enumerates the content ('capability values, settings, and availability status'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_devices and search_devices, which are for listing/finding devices rather than retrieving details for a single known device.
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 description explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Use list_devices or search_devices first to find the device ID.' This names the exact alternative tools and gives a clear when-to-use directive, which is strong guidance for an agent selecting between options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.