tailscale_get_device_posture_attributesRetrieve all posture attributes for a device, including custom and system-managed, to evaluate its security status.
Get all posture attributes for a device, including custom and system-managed attributes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | Yes | The device ID. nodeId from tailscale_list_devices (e.g. nPM2KNuedB21DEVEL); numeric id ok; not the nodeKey. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.21.0Input schema / properties / deviceId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The device ID"New value: +"The device ID. nodeId from tailscale_list_devices (e.g. nPM2KNuedB21DEVEL); numeric id ok; not the nodeKey."v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds minor context by noting the response includes both custom and system-managed attributes, but it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as auth requirements or error behavior.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and scope with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase 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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotationsasi and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It does not explain the return shape, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make that a minor gap.
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 deviceId parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example and clarification about nodeId vs nodeKey. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable since the schema already carries the burden.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('posture attributes for a device'), and adds the clarifying scope 'including custom and system-managed attributes.' This distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like tailscale_set_device_posture_attribute and tailscale_delete_device_posture_attribute.
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 a read-only retrieval use case, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the set/delete/batch posture attribute siblings. No when/when-not guidance or alternatives are named, though the tool name and readOnlyHint make the intent reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.