Datto RMM MCP Server

Get job results for a device

datto_get_job_results

Retrieve the results of a specific job on a device using job UID and device UID.

Instructions

Get the results of a job on a specific device.

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": {
      "jobUid": "<jobUid>",
      "deviceUid": "<deviceUid>"
    },
    "name": "datto_get_job_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobUid`	Yes	Job UID
`deviceUid`	Yes	Device UID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get the results,' which implies a read operation, but it does not specify any constraints like pagination, data volume, or side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the implicit read-only nature.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One succinct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it could include a bit more detail without sacrificing conciseness. Front-loaded with the action.

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?

For a tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on what 'results' entails (e.g., format, whether it includes full output or status codes). Given the simplicity, it is adequate but could be better.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (both jobUid and deviceUid have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Job UID' and 'Device UID.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as per guidelines since schema already documents the parameters sufficiently. The description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Get the results of a job on a specific device.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('results of a job') and distinguishes from sibling tools like datto_get_job (job metadata) and datto_get_job_stdout (specific output). Purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., datto_get_job, datto_get_job_stdout). Does not mention any prerequisites or context. Minimal information leaves the agent to infer usage without support.

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

Deploy Server