Matter Web Controller

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_devices

List all Matter smart-home devices with their current states and aliases, covering physical and logical entities for quick inventory and status checks.

Instructions

List all devices (physical and logical) with their current states and aliases.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_devices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.29.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is a useful safety signal. It also states the output includes 'current states and aliases'. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or permission requirements, and there's no explicit statement that it's non-destructive. This is adequate but has gaps.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence. Every word contributes: 'all devices' specifies scope, 'physical and logical' clarifies the taxonomy, 'current states and aliases' previews the return content. No redundant or filler words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and an output schema (per context signals), the description needs only to state the tool's purpose and key output characteristics. It does so effectively, mentioning the scope and included fields. This is a complete description for a simple list tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific details. The baseline of 4 applies, as no parameter explanation is needed.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'devices', further specifying 'physical and logical' and 'current states and aliases'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lights or get_sensor, which target specific device categories. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it's not a 5.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when you need an overview of all devices, as indicated by 'List all devices'. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is minimal guidance, so a score of 3.

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