Retrieve the commands a device accepts, including each command's name, label, and expected parameters, by providing its public device ID.
List the commands a device accepts: name, label, and the params each one expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | Yes | The device's public id, e.g. dev_a1b2c3. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does describe the shape of the output (name, label, params), but says nothing about read-only safety, error behavior for an invalid deviceId, or whether results are paginated.
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?
One sentence, no filler, with the verb-and-resource front-loaded and the returned fields appended as a compact clause. Every word earns its place.
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 simple single-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and expected return contents adequately. Minor gaps remain around safety profile and error cases, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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?
There is a single parameter (deviceId) with 100% schema description coverage, including a format example (dev_a1b2c3). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (commands a device accepts) plus the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from send_command, which dispatches rather than enumerates. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: listing a device's accepted commands naturally precedes send_command, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or which sibling it pairs with.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.