list_devicesList registered devices in inventory, filtering to active ones by default, to retrieve connection details without exposing stored secrets.
Lists registered devices in inventory without secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| only_active | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait — results exclude secrets — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or permissions for what is presumably a read-only enumeration.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the key scoping detail ('without secrets') is included rather than buried. It is terse but not padded.
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, so return values need not be explained, and this is a simple one-parameter read tool. However, the total absence of information about the only_active filter leaves a real gap for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'only_active', which has a default of true and no documented meaning. The description never mentions filtering behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the one parameter that controls the result set.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('registered devices in inventory'), so the agent knows it enumerates devices rather than fetching one. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_device or resolve_device, leaving the list-vs-single distinction to inference from the name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_device or resolve_device, nor any stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the list/get naming convention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.