Activates a deactivated device in OpenWISP so it can reconnect and receive its configuration. Provide the device UUID or ID to restore it via the controller.
[Category: Devices & Controller] Activate a deactivated device so it can reconnect and receive configuration. (HTTP POST /api/v1/controller/device/{id}/activate/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device UUID or ID to activate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the meaningful outcome (device reconnects and receives configuration), but omits whether the call is idempotent on an already-active device, what permissions are required, and what the response contains.
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 tightly written sentences with the action and its effect front-loaded, followed by the HTTP endpoint for API context. No filler, though the raw URL adds little for an agent that already knows the tool.
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?
For a one-parameter state-toggle tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the agent needs: which device, and what activation does. Return format and error conditions are the only notable omissions, and they are minor here.
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 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already explains that it accepts a UUID or ID. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('device') plus the resulting behavior ('reconnect and receive configuration'), which clearly separates it from openwisp_deactivate_device in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse tool, but the 'deactivated device' framing makes the distinction inferable.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool applies to a device currently in the deactivated state, and the sibling openwisp_deactivate_device is the obvious counterpart. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so this is minimum-viable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.