Retrieve gadgets from Harald's device library with their status and summary to identify available or connected Bluetooth devices before protocol work.
list the gadgets in harald's device library, with status and summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 that results include 'status and summary', which is useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about whether the listing reflects cached/paired entries only, whether it triggers hardware activity, or permission requirements.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. Slight deduction for the informal 'gadgets' and the vague 'summary', which cost clarity rather than length.
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 parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly stays short. What is missing is the relationship to sibling enumeration tools and whether the device library is BLE-only, which matters given the presence of classic_devices.
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 to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument enumeration rather than suggesting any filtering inputs.
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 verb 'list' and resource 'device library' are stated, but 'gadgets' is odd jargon that leaves the resource type ambiguous, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like classic_devices or scan. An agent can guess it enumerates devices, but cannot tell from the description which device domain it covers.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite obvious sibling overlap (classic_devices, scan, load_device). The agent must infer call ordering – e.g. whether a scan must precede listing – entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.