Retrieve a specific device's deep-scan risk assessment using the assessment UUID and device UUID to get detailed security findings for that device.
Get a single deep-scan device by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Assessment UUID. | |
| deviceId | Yes | Deep scan target (device) UUID. |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves a single item; it does not mention required access, error cases, the response shape, or whether the device is scoped under the assessment. The description is not misleading but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name and schema.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. It leads with the core action and object, making it easy to scan.
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 get-by-ID tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is arguably sufficient to invoke it correctly. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool versus related risk assessment tools and does not clarify what a 'deep-scan device' is in relation to the assessment and device UUIDs.
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 'id' and 'deviceId' clearly documented as UUIDs. The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond those schema descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('a single deep-scan device by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling list tool. However, the phrase 'deep-scan device' is somewhat jargon-heavy and the relationship to the required assessment UUID is not explicitly explained.
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 usage when you need one specific device by ID, and the sibling list tool implies an alternative when listing all devices. But there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over telivy_list_risk_assessment_devices or how the assessment UUID and device ID interact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.