get_user_device_identifiersRetrieve a user's pre-assigned device identifiers—serial numbers, IMEIs, and similar—so devices link to that user automatically at enrollment.
List device identifiers (serial numbers, IMEIs, etc.) pre-assigned to a user, so devices are linked to them automatically when they enroll.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | User email. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the purpose of these identifiers (they auto-link devices at enrollment), but says nothing about what is returned when the user has no pre-assigned identifiers or how unknown emails are handled.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and resource, with the enrollment rationale placed after as supporting context. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, so the description covers nearly everything an agent needs. The only real gap is edge-case behavior, such as an empty result set or an unknown email.
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%, with the single email parameter documented as 'User email.', so the baseline is 3. The description slightly reinforces the parameter's meaning by tying the lookup to 'a user' whose devices get linked, adding a bit of domain context beyond the schema, so a modest bump is warranted.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List device identifiers ... pre-assigned to a user') and even names example identifier types (serial numbers, IMEIs). It implicitly separates itself from assign_device_identifiers_to_user and remove_device_identifier_from_user by framing the data as already pre-assigned, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the stated purpose and the enrollment-linking rationale; there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no mention of an alternative tool such as get_device or list_devices, and no prerequisite (e.g., the user must already exist) spelled out. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.