devicegroup_add_devicesAdd devices to a specified LibreNMS device group by providing the group name and device ID list.
Add devices to a device group in LibreNMS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Device group name | |
| payload | Yes | Array of device IDs to add. Format: {"devices": [1, 2, 3]} |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, signaling mutation and potential destructiveness. The description does not add details about what exactly happens when devices are added, whether the operation overwrites existing members, or whether it is reversible. It adds no context beyond the annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate; there is no contradiction between description and 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?
A concise single sentence that states the action and resource clearly. It contains no filler or redundant information. It could perhaps mention the payload format or a sibling contrast, but it is appropriately sized for a simple mutation tool.
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?
The schema fully documents both parameters, and annotations identify the operation as destructive yet not read-only. However, the description does not state anything about the behavior of adding devices, such as whether duplicates are handled, whether the list replaces or appends, or what the response contains despite an output schema existing. For a simple write operation with full schema coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
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 schema covers 100% of both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The payload format is documented in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate.
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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Add devices to a device group in LibreNMS.' It identifies the verb (Add), the resource (device group), and the object (devices). It is distinguishable from siblings like devicegroup_remove_devices and devicegroup_add, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as devicegroup_add, devicegroup_update, or devicegroup_remove_devices. The description gives no context about prerequisites, such as the need for an existing device group, or when adding devices is appropriate. The agent must rely on the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.