health_listList available health graphs for a network device by hostname or ID, with pagination options to control result size.
List available health graphs for a device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| offset | No | Number of results to skip (offset) for pagination | |
| hostname | Yes | Device hostname or ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.3Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 100,
+ "description": "Maximum number of results to return",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Number of results to skip (offset) for pagination",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description is consistent with them. The phrase 'available' adds slight context that only currently available graphs are listed, but no additional behavioral details such as empty-result behavior or pagination semantics are disclosed.
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 single concise sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. There is no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 straightforward list operation with full parameter documentation, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is essentially complete. It only lacks explicit routing among sibling tools, but the complexity is low enough that this is not a major gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain hostname, limit, or offset. It adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but not extra value.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available health graphs for a device'). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar tools like device_graphs_list or health_by_type.
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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the available health graphs for a given device. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as device_graphs_list or health_by_type, and no exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.