Retrieve detailed information for a specific network device, optionally including its interfaces and connected wireless stations.
Get a single device's detail, optionally including its interfaces and/or connected stations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device ID (from uisp_list_devices). | |
| withStations | No | Include the device's connected wireless stations. |
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 does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the response contains, how interfaces are included, or why the schema only exposes withStations despite the description mentioning interfaces.
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 one efficient sentence that leads with the core action and resource. It is not bloated, though the unsupported 'interfaces' clause slightly reduces precision.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'detail' includes and how the optional parameters affect the result. It does not, and the interface/stations ambiguity leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's actual return shape and default behavior.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond restating the withStations parameter's purpose and introduces an 'interfaces' concept not represented in the schema, so it does not meaningfully improve parameter understanding.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('a single device's detail'), which distinguishes it from list-style tools. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling uisp_get_device, and the mention of 'interfaces' is not backed by a schema parameter, introducing slight ambiguity.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uisp_get_device or uisp_list_device_interfaces. The optional inclusion of stations/interfaces implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-or-when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.