list_devicesRetrieve Withings devices linked to your account with type, model, battery, firmware, and last sync details to help diagnose missing data.
Withings devices linked to your account: type, model, battery level, firmware and the last time each synced (useful when data looks missing). No serial numbers or ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description contributes beyond that by disclosing the freshness field ('last time each synced') and explicitly what is excluded ('No serial numbers or ids') — valuable because there is no output schema to reveal the response shape.
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?
Two compact clauses: the resource plus its returned fields first, then the diagnostic use case, then the exclusion note. Every phrase carries information and nothing is repeated.
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 output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the fields plus what is omitted. Minor gaps remain (ordering, whether an empty list is possible, whether auth is required), but nothing critical to invocation is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is applied. The description does not waste space restating an empty schema.
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?
Names the specific resource (Withings devices linked to the account) and enumerates exactly what it exposes: type, model, battery level, firmware, last sync. The verb is only implied by the name/title rather than stated in the description, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with the data-fetching siblings, but the resource is unmistakable.
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 parenthetical 'useful when data looks missing' gives one concrete diagnostic scenario, which is real usage guidance. However, no alternatives are named (e.g. auth_status for connection problems) and there is no when-not guidance, so routing is only weakly supported.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.