device_getRetrieve detailed device information from LibreNMS using the device hostname. Query current monitoring data and device attributes in one call.
Get device details from LibreNMS by hostname.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes | Device hostname |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as error handling when a hostname is not found, authentication requirements, or response details, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that communicates the action, target, source, and lookup key with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description provides all essential operational context. The agent knows what input to supply and what kind of result to expect; output structure is delegated to the output schema.
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?
The input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a description of 'Device hostname'. The tool description only repeats the fact that lookup is by hostname and adds no format, validation, or meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('device details'), a source ('LibreNMS'), and a lookup key ('by hostname'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like devices_list (enumeration) and device_ports_get (specific port data).
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?
The phrase 'by hostname' implies this is the tool for fetching a single device's general details, but the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer for more specific data (e.g., ports, availability, VLANs). Usage context is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.