Retrieve full details for a single monitored computer using its computer ID. Returns complete inventory and configuration data from the Teramind monitoring system.
Get full detail for a single monitored computer. Requires a computer ID from teramind_list_computers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| computer_id | Yes | Computer ID, from teramind_list_computers. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get full detail' implies a read operation and scopes the behavior to a single computer, but it doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics, describe the return format, or mention any edge behaviors. This is adequate but not rich for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately after. Every word 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?
For a single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description fully equips an agent: what it does, what it needs, and where to obtain that input. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.
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% and the parameter's description already states 'Computer ID, from teramind_list_computers.' The tool description repeats the same provenance requirement, reinforcing it but adding no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('full detail for a single monitored computer'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like teramind_list_computers and teramind_get_agent. An agent can immediately identify this as the single-entity retrieval counterpart to the list tool.
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 explicitly says the tool requires a computer ID from teramind_list_computers, giving a clear prerequisite and usage flow. It doesn't state explicit exclusions or name alternatives, but the list-then-get pattern is strongly implied and sufficient for this simple get tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.