Skip to main content
Glama

device_deck_get_device

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve one registered device's connection and credential metadata and saved observations by device ID. Treat saved status as historical context, not proof the device is online.

Instructions

Read one device and its connection/credential metadata and saved observations. A saved status is historical, not proof the device is currently online.

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": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>"
    },
    "name": "device_deck_get_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
device_idYes
response_formatNojson

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral caveat — that a saved status is historical rather than proof of current connectivity — which prevents a real misinterpretation of returned data.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with two undocumented parameters and no routing to sibling tools, an agent still has gaps before it can invoke this confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it: neither device_id (format, where it comes from) nor response_format (json vs markdown) is mentioned. 'One device' only loosely implies a single identifier parameter.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource — 'Read one device' — and enumerates the payload (connection/credential metadata and saved observations), which distinguishes it from a list operation. It never names the sibling tools, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'read one device' suggests a single-record lookup versus device_deck_list_devices, and the historical-status caveat hints that a live check requires something else. Neither the when-not condition nor a named alternative (e.g. probe_device for current state) is stated outright.

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