Retrieve all Roborock robot vacuums linked to your account, including device name, ID, model, and online status. Use it to identify available devices before controlling or cleaning.
List the Roborock devices on your account: name, device id, model, online.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the account scoping ('on your account') and the field list. It says nothing about what happens with multiple accounts, pagination, or device ordering, which is acceptable given the output schema covers the return shape.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned fields. Nothing is wasted and nothing important trails off.
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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers what is needed: what is listed and at what scope. Only the relationship to the device-specific siblings is unstated, which is a minor gap for such a simple tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is unscoped by device, which matches the empty input schema.
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 and resource ('List the Roborock devices') and enumerates the fields surfaced (name, id, model, online). It is distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings (start_cleaning, get_status) by being the account-level enumeration, though it never explicitly says so.
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. The agent can infer this is a discovery call that precedes the device-specific siblings, but the description leaves that inference to the reader rather than naming an alternative or prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.