netatmo_list_roomsLists a home's rooms with their IDs, types, and installed devices, so you can identify rooms before reading status or applying thermostat settings.
List the rooms of a home with their IDs, types and the devices installed in each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| home_id | No | Home ID from netatmo_list_homes. Optional when the account has a single home. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| home | Yes | ||
| rooms | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only that devices are included per room; it discloses nothing about pagination, missing homes, or permission requirements. That is acceptable against rich annotations but not generous.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the return content after, with zero boilerplate or filler. Nothing to cut.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't explain returns or side effects. With only one optional parameter fully documented, the definition is callable as-is; only the sibling routing is left implicit.
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% and the single home_id parameter is already documented with its source (netatmo_list_homes) and its optionality for single-home accounts. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) plus the resource (rooms of a home) and enumerates the payload fields (IDs, types, installed devices). This separates it from netatmo_get_room_status and netatmo_compare_rooms at a glance, 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?
The 'list' framing implies a discovery/browse step, and the schema note pointing to netatmo_list_homes implies the ordering of calls. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus netatmo_get_room_status or netatmo_compare_rooms is given anywhere in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.