List the commands available to schedule for a device by providing its public device ID, so you can choose valid commands for schedule creation or updates.
List the commands available to schedule for a device, same catalog as get_device_commands.
| 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 behavioral burden. 'List' clearly signals a non-mutating read, and the equivalence-to-get_device_commands note adds useful context, but auth requirements, device state prerequisites, and result shape are not 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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The trailing comparison clause is slightly redundant with the main purpose statement but earns its place for routing.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by indicating the return is a command catalog identical to get_device_commands, but it leaves the response format and any device-state prerequisites unspecified for a tool whose name suggests broader 'context'.
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% for the single required deviceId parameter, so the schema already documents the format and example. The description adds only the implicit device scoping and no syntax or constraint detail 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('commands available to schedule for a device'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_device_commands by asserting catalog equivalence. The name 'get_schedule_context' is vaguer than the description, but the description itself is clear.
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?
Names the alternative (get_device_commands) and states the condition of equivalence, which helps an agent route correctly. It does not state any when-not or any prerequisite beyond the device scope, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.