Retrieve detailed information for a specific device using its NinjaOne device ID. Use this to inspect configuration, status, and attributes for RMM management.
Get detailed information about a specific device
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | Yes | The device ID from NinjaOne |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what 'detailed information' includes, whether it errors on unknown IDs, or whether any auth scope is needed. The read-only nature is only weakly implied by 'Get'.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved by omitting information rather than by tight phrasing.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say roughly what comes back and whether the ID must be discovered first. 'Detailed information' leaves an agent guessing about the payload.
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 is 100% and the single parameter's description already names NinjaOne as the ID source. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
Clear verb+resource: retrieve details for one specific device. The word "specific" implicitly distinguishes it from list_devices and search_devices, but it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup-by-ID path rather than a bulk listing. No explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-something-else guidance, and no mention that device_id must come from list_devices/search_devices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.