Retrieve location details from OpenWISP by UUID or ID to inspect network sites and associated infrastructure.
[Category: Geo & Locations] Get location details. (HTTP GET /api/v1/controller/location/{pk}/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pk | Yes | Location 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 full burden. It only says it gets details via HTTP GET, but doesn't disclose what data is returned, any permissions required, or error behavior. For a read operation with no annotations, this is minimal disclosure.
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 short sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It doesn't explain the return structure (which the lack of output schema requires) or any behavioral aspects. An agent can call it correctly but lacks full 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'pk' parameter. The description doesn't add anything beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (Get) and resource (location details), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like openwisp_list_locations or openwisp_update_location. The HTTP endpoint adds precision, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings it differs from.
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 guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like openwisp_list_locations or openwisp_get_device_location. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.