Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lava-mcp

lava-mcp

by mattface
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

get_device

Retrieve the full record for a device by providing its hostname.

Instructions

Get the full record for one device by hostname.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>"
    },
    "name": "get_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostnameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. Description only states the action ('Get') without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, error handling, or rate limits. For a get operation, agent might infer safety, but description should offer more transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence of 9 words is very concise. It front-loads the purpose efficiently. However, it may be too terse given the lack of supplementary information; a bit more detail would improve without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and lookup method. However, it omits the meaning of 'full record,' potential error conditions, and response structure. It meets a minimum viable standard but lacks completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%; the description adds only 'by hostname' but no format, validation rules, examples, or constraints for the hostname parameter. This minimal addition does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action (Get), resource (device), and scope (full record for one device by hostname). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_devices (plural) and get_device_dictionary (different purpose).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies use when a single device record is needed, but no conditions or exclusions are provided. Siblings like list_devices and get_device_dictionary are not referenced.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools