Retrieve the location object for a specific OpenWISP device using its UUID or ID, enabling geo-location lookups for network infrastructure management.
[Category: Geo & Locations] Get a device location object. (HTTP GET /api/v1/controller/device/{id}/location/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device UUID or ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Disclosing 'HTTP GET /api/v1/...' usefully signals a non-destructive read operation, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, the shape of the returned location object, or error behavior for a missing id.
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 compact sentence with the category prefix and endpoint, front-loading the resource being fetched. Nothing is padded, though the category tag contributes only mild organizational value.
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 simple single-parameter read with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not hint at the structure of the returned location object, which would help an agent that has no output schema to reference.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as a Device UUID or ID in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g., accepted id formats) beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Get a device location object') and even names the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what entity is fetched. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like openwisp_get_location or openwisp_get_device_coordinates, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus openwisp_get_location, openwisp_get_device_coordinates, or openwisp_list_locations. Usage context is only implied by the name and category tag.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.