Retrieve all network connections for a specific OpenWISP device using its UUID or ID. Use to inspect device connectivity and troubleshoot link status via the controller API.
[Category: Devices & Controller] List connections for a device. (HTTP GET /api/v1/controller/device/{id}/connection/)
| 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 behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP GET method, which implies a safe read, but says nothing about pagination, authentication, response format, or filtering behavior.
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?
Extremely concise and front-loaded: category tag, purpose, and endpoint are packed into one sentence plus a parenthetical. No wasted words.
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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for invocation but does not cover return shape, pagination, or filtering. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 fully documented there as 'Device UUID or ID'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clear verb (List) and resource (connections for a device), with the HTTP endpoint reinforcing the operation. It distinguishes from singular get_device_connection and write siblings by name, but does not explicitly differentiate among them in the description text.
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 tool versus siblings like get_device_connection, create_device_connection, or list_device_commands. Usage is only implied by the name and HTTP method.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.