List all devices deployed at an OpenWISP location by passing the location UUID or ID. Use it to identify which network devices belong to that site.
[Category: Geo & Locations] List devices deployed at a location. (HTTP GET /api/v1/controller/location/{id}/device/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | 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 the full burden. The HTTP GET hint implies a read operation, but there is no disclosure of pagination, result size, required permissions, or what the response contains for a listing endpoint.
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?
One sentence plus a category tag and endpoint, front-loaded with the action and resource. Nothing wasted, though the URL adds little for the agent.
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, the description covers the essential call semantics but omits return-shape and pagination expectations, which matter for a listing endpoint.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Location UUID or ID'. The description's 'at a location' and the endpoint path merely confirm the schema; it adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it. 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 ('List devices deployed at a location'), which is clearly distinct from openwisp_get_device_location (a device's location) and openwisp_list_devices (all devices). It does not name those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives such as openwisp_list_devices or openwisp_get_device_location. The agent must infer the use case from the phrase 'at a location'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.