lava-mcp

by mattface

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hybrid

list_devices

Query and filter devices from the LAVA board farm by type, health, or state. Returns the count and matching devices.

Instructions

List devices, optionally filtered by device_type, health or state.

Returns {count, results}. health is e.g. Good/Bad/Maintenance/Unknown; state is Idle/Reserved/Running.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_devices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device_type`	No
`health`	No
`state`	No
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations; description adds return format and example values for health/state, but omits pagination behavior despite limit parameter. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys key information.

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?

Covers purpose, filters, and return format, but lacks pagination details and default behavior. Missing info for limit parameter is a gap for a list tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage; description explains 3 out of 4 parameters (device_type, health, state) with example values, but omits limit parameter and its default. Partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'devices', distinguishes from siblings like get_device and list_device_types. Includes optional filters and return format.

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?

Implies usage via 'optionally filtered' but no explicit when-not or alternatives. Siblings exist but no guidance on selection.

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