Retrieve all devices belonging to a specific device group using its UUID, including subgroups and pagination controls.
List the devices that are members of a given device group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | ||
| groupUuid | Yes | UUID of the device group. | |
| pageToken | No | ||
| recurseSubgroups | No | Include devices from subgroups. Default false. |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core list operation and omits pagination behavior, subgroup recursion semantics, and any read-only/safety statement.
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 clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource and earns its place.
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 has four parameters and no annotations or output schema, so the description needs to provide more context. It does not explain pagination, subgroup traversal defaults, or how the result set is shaped, leaving important gaps for correct invocation.
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 50% and the description only alludes to groupUuid via 'given device group.' It adds no meaning for pageSize, pageToken, or recurseSubgroups beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'List the devices that are members of a given device group.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from list_device_groups, list_devices, and get_device.
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 intended use is implied: call it when you need the device membership of a specific group. However, it does not state when to prefer this over list_devices or list_device_groups, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.