loyverse_list_pos_devicesList point-of-sale devices registered to a Loyverse account. Filter by store and include deleted devices to audit active and archived terminals.
List the till devices registered to the account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store_id | No | ||
| show_deleted | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal behavioral information beyond that, merely stating 'list' and 'registered to the account.' It does not disclose how the optional parameters (store_id, show_deleted) affect behavior, pagination, or output format, so it adds little value beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of unnecessary words. It clearly communicates the action and resource without fluff. However, its brevity sacrifices parameter details, though that is not the focus of this dimension.
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?
The tool is simple with no required parameters and annotations cover safety, but the description does not mention the optional parameters or their purpose, nor does it indicate the response shape. Given the schema coverage is 0%, the description should have explained the parameters to make the tool fully understandable. It is incomplete for an agent to call correctly without additional context.
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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention store_id or show_deleted at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from names. This is a complete gap in parameter semantics.
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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (till devices) with scope ('registered to the account'), clearly distinguishing it from other list tools like loyverse_list_stores and from the write counterpart loyverse_upsert_pos_device. It is unambiguous and directly matches the tool 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?
The description gives a clear context (listing POS devices) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated, so it does not meet the 'explicit' bar for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.