vesper

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

device_info

Read-only

Retrieves TTL-cached SSH device details including architecture, iOS version, and jailbreak evidence; set force_refresh to get fresh data.

Instructions

Get TTL-cached SSH discovery for this connection; force_refresh=true requests fresh architecture, iOS and jailbreak evidence.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>"
    },
    "name": "device_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device_id`	Yes
`force_refresh`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`elapsed_ms`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are TTL-cached, SSH discovery is used, and force_refresh requests fresh architecture/iOS/jailbreak evidence. It stops short of covering auth requirements, latency, or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted text, efficiently conveying the cached-discovery purpose and the force_refresh option.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, reducing the description's burden. However, the required device_id parameter is not explained and there is no routing guidance against sibling tools such as device_list, leaving meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains force_refresh reasonably well but provides no meaning for the required device_id parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented beyond the schema's structural constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: get TTL-cached SSH discovery for this connection, returning architecture, iOS, and jailbreak evidence. This is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as device_list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the force_refresh behavior, indicating when to request fresh evidence instead of cached data. It does not say when to use this tool versus device_list or other debugging/discovery siblings, nor does it state any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.