Check a device's antivirus status: engine name, real-time and tamper-protection state, plus active threats.
Get antivirus/endpoint-protection state for one device: engine name, real-time/tamper-protection status, and any active threats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | Yes | Unique identifier for the device. | |
| organisationId | Yes | The RoboShadow organisation's UUID. Discover it with roboshadow_list_organisations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates a read-only get operation and names the output categories, which is helpful. It does not describe the response structure, empty-threat handling, permissions, or other operational caveats.
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 filler. It efficiently states the action, scope, and key output fields in under 20 words.
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?
Given there is no output schema and a large set of sibling tools, the description should do more to disambiguate similar tools and outline the return shape. It explains the domain data returned but not how the result is structured or why this tool should be preferred over closely related siblings.
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%, with both parameters already clearly documented. The description reinforces the per-device scope but adds no parameter-specific meaning 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 opens with a clear action and resource: 'Get antivirus/endpoint-protection state for one device' and enumerates specific returned contents (engine name, real-time/tamper-protection status, active threats). It clearly identifies the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from overlapping siblings like roboshadow_get_antivirus_report_by_device or roboshadow_get_antivirus_threats.
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 'for one device' implies the tool is appropriate when a single device's antivirus state is needed, and the required parameters reinforce that. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for org-wide summaries or threat-level reports.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.