Lists all NinjaOne devices with optional pagination and filtering, enabling you to browse or target specific endpoints.
List all devices in the NinjaOne system with optional pagination and filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Device filter query | |
| pageNo | No | Page number for pagination | |
| pageSize | No | Number of devices per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not that it is a safe read-only operation, not the return shape, not what pagination defaults apply, and not whether results are scoped to an organization or the whole tenant. Only the mention of 'optional pagination and filtering' hints at behavior at all.
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 sentence with no filler, and the core action plus scope are front-loaded. Its brevity edges into under-specification rather than waste, so it is efficient but thin.
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-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. The biggest missing piece is the 'filter' query syntax, which an agent cannot derive from the schema's one-line 'Device filter query' label and which the description does not supply.
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 all three parameters are already documented in structured form, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates that pagination and filtering exist but adds no syntax for the 'filter' query string or sensible defaults for pageNo/pageSize, so it adds nothing over the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List all devices') and scopes it to the NinjaOne system, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like search_devices or get_device, leaving the agent to infer that those are narrower lookup paths.
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 phrase 'with optional pagination and filtering' implies the parameters are discretionary but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With search_devices and get_device as siblings, the description should say which one to reach for, and it says nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.