Look up a device by its MAC address to retrieve its details from UISP network infrastructure.
Look up a device by its MAC address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mac | Yes | Device MAC address, e.g. 78:8a:20:5f:2a:ff. |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Look up' signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is the key behavioral trait for this tool. However, it does not mention what is returned, how missing devices are handled, or whether special permissions are needed.
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 direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with one required parameter.
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 single-parameter lookup, the description is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from clarifying what the tool returns and how it differs from uisp_get_device when selecting the appropriate tool.
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 schema already documents the mac parameter with an example. The description only restates that this is a MAC-address lookup and adds no additional syntax, formatting, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.
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 ('look up'), a resource ('device'), and the exact lookup key ('by its MAC address'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uisp_get_device or uisp_get_device_detail, which are likely keyed on other identifiers.
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?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as uisp_get_device or uisp_list_devices. The MAC-address qualifier gives some implicit context, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.