magicsword-mcp

Official

by magicsword-io

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Request endpoint check-in

request_endpoint_checkin

Queue a check-in command for one endpoint by supplying its UUID to initiate device reporting and status updates.

Instructions

Queues a check-in command for one endpoint. Requires endpoints:write.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "endpoint_id": "<endpoint_id>"
    },
    "name": "request_endpoint_checkin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`endpoint_id`	Yes	Endpoint UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'Queues' reveals the command is enqueued asynchronously rather than executed immediately, and the explicit 'Requires endpoints:write' scope informs auth needs. It doesn't explain what happens to an already-queued check-in, but the added context is solid.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the auth requirement. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter queue action, the description covers purpose, asynchrony, and authorization, and there is no output schema to explain away. It is nearly complete, missing only any note on check-in frequency or the effect of repeated requests (consistent with idempotent=false).

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single endpoint_id parameter (the schema supplies format and pattern). The description only reinforces 'one endpoint' without adding format or lookup detail, so the schema carries the load and baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Queues') plus the resource ('a check-in command') and scope ('for one endpoint'), so the agent knows exactly what action occurs. It does not name or distinguish from any sibling tool, but no sibling overlaps this check-in action, keeping the gap minor.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the required permission ('Requires endpoints:write'), which signals a write-path operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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