Retrieve the device identifiers linked to an App Store provisioning profile, with optional pagination via limit.
GET /v1/profiles/{id}/relationships/devices (GET /v1/profiles/{id}/relationships/devices)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers almost nothing. The embedded 'GET' is the only behavioral signal (implying a read-only fetch); there is no mention of pagination, return shape, or whether the linkage is versioned or filtered.
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?
It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency, and the path is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure waste. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no intent statement to front-load.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a bare-path description, the definition is insufficient for a paginated relationship endpoint. It does not explain what the relationship resources contain, how pagination via 'limit' behaves, or how this differs from the 'related' sibling.
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 100% for both parameters (id and limit), so the schema already does the documentation work and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or relationship-specific meaning beyond what the schema states.
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?
The description is nothing but the raw endpoint path repeated twice inside parentheses, so it effectively restates the tool name rather than explaining the operation. An agent can infer it fetches the devices relationship of a profile, but no verb-and-resource statement is actually provided.
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. The sibling profiles_devices_get_to_many_related covers the same linkage from the 'related' perspective, and nothing here distinguishes the two or states any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.