Retrieve a gadget's last reported state and its freshness (fresh, stale, or offline) to check device status before routing commands. Accepts a device ID or its given name.
Read a gadget's last reported state and freshness (fresh, stale or offline). Reported state is the device's own report; it does not prove a physical effect. device_id may be the gadget's ID or the name you gave it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by defining what 'state' means ('the device's own report; it does not prove a physical effect') and naming the freshness values, but says nothing about error behavior or what an offline device returns.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the operation, the semantic caveat about reported state, and the identifier flexibility. Front-loaded and free of filler.
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, the description does the work of explaining the return: state plus a fresh/stale/offline freshness classification, along with an important trust caveat. Only minor gaps remain (behavior when the device is offline, failure modes).
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 0% – the single parameter is documented only as a string titled 'Device Id'. The description compensates by stating that device_id accepts either the gadget's ID or the user-assigned name, which is exactly the ambiguity the schema leaves open.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a gadget's last reported state and freshness'), with the freshness values enumerated. It distinguishes itself implicitly from gadgets_read_events and gadgets_command_status, but never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named as an alternative. Usage is only implied: 'last reported state' signals a current-status lookup rather than an event history or command path, so an agent can infer the intent but gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.