Retrieve the cameras associated with a specific Brivo access point using its accessPointId. Supports offset and pageSize to paginate results.
List the cameras associated with an access point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Skip the first N results. Default: 0. | |
| pageSize | No | Max results to return. Default: 20. Max: 100. | |
| accessPointId | Yes | The Brivo access point id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination behavior, ordering, empty-result handling, or permission requirements. For a pure list tool with zero added behavioral context, this is a gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 simple three-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the inverse-relationship context that would help disambiguate it among many sibling list tools.
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 offset, pageSize, and accessPointId are fully documented in the schema (defaults and max included). The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (cameras) scoped to a parent (access point), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling Camera: List_camera_access_points, which describes the same association from the opposite direction; an agent could easily pick the wrong one without opening schemas.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a valid accessPointId is needed), and no mention of the inverse sibling List_camera_access_points. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.