List managed endpoints from your ESET PROTECT fleet, optionally filtering by display name, functionality status, or mute state to identify devices needing attention.
List managed devices (endpoints), optionally filtered by display name, functionality status, or mute state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| isMuted | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| pageToken | No | ||
| displayNames | No | Filter to these exact display names. | |
| functionalityStatus | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burdenags; it does disclose that this is a read-only listing operation and that filtering is optional. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, defaults, result shape, or possible limits, which are relevant given pageSize and pageToken parameters.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and the optional filters immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The tool is moderately complex due to five optional parameters, an enum, and pagination fields, but the description only covers the three filtering dimensions. Critical context such as pagination behavior and filter semantics is missing, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete.
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 only 20%, with displayNames being the only documented parameterional. The description names the three filter categories but does not clarify isMuted semantics, the meaning of pageSize/pageToken, or how filters combine. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.
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 clearly states a specific operation ('List managed devices (endpoints)') and names the three optional filter dimensions. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_group_devices or get_device, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 implies this is the general device-listing tool with optional filters, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings such as list_group_devices, batch_get_devices, or get_device. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.