Get an organisation-wide hardware summary showing total machines, servers, workstations, and devices running an end-of-life OS to identify upgrade needs.
Get an organisation-wide hardware summary: total machines, servers, workstations, and machines running an end-of-life OS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the behavioral outcome: returning counts of machines, servers, workstations, and EOL OS systems. It describes a read-only summary operation and the categories returned, which is sufficient context for this simple tool.
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?
One tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the output categories. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?
For a one-parameter read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context about what the agent will get back. It could mention that results are returned as counts, but the phrasing 'total machines, servers...' already implies this well enough.
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 schema already documents the only parameter with 100% coverage, including how to discover the organisationId. The description adds no further parameter guidance, but none is needed given the high schema coverage and single simple parameter.
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 ('Get') and resource ('organisation-wide hardware summary'), and enumerates the exact categories returned: total machines, servers, workstations, and end-of-life OS machines. This clearly distinguishes it from device-specific siblings like roboshadow_get_hardware_report_by_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 phrase 'organisation-wide' signals this is the summary-level tool rather than per-device or per-scan tools, giving implicit context for when to select it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for a straightforward summary query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.