List every device in the open network with its model, kind, and canvas position. Use the returned names to target devices in other tools.
List every device in the open network with its model, kind (router, switch, pc, ...) and canvas position. Use the names to target devices in other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| devices | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the scope is 'every device in the open network' and that names are reusable identifiers, which is useful context, but it says nothing about ordering, payload size, or whether an empty network returns an empty list.
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?
Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and return shape, the second gives the practical follow-on action. Scope and content are front-loaded with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-parameter read tool the description is essentially complete, with only minor gaps such as ordering/emptiness behavior.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. Schema description coverage is 100% and there is nothing further the description could add about inputs.
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 gives a clear verb and resource ('List every device in the open network') and even enumerates the returned fields (model, kind, canvas position), so an agent can distinguish it from list_models, list_links or list_ports. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it at a 4.
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?
'Use the names to target devices in other tools' hints at downstream usage, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over sibling listing tools (list_models, list_slots, network_description) or any precondition/exclusion. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.