Fetch a device's completed or cancelled schedules, sorted newest first, by providing its public device ID.
List a device's completed or cancelled schedules, most recent first.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the result ordering ('most recent first') and the status filter, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether the history is bounded in time. Read-only nature is only implied by 'List'.
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, front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and ordering constraint; no filler or redundant clauses.
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 read-only list with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a conceptual level (completed/cancelled schedules, newest first). Minor gaps remain on pagination and volume of history, which matter for list endpoints.
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 one parameter with 100% schema description coverage (deviceId, including a format example), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier beyond restating that it is a device's schedules, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 (a device's schedules) narrowed to completed/cancelled statuses, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_schedules. It never names the alternative explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the status filter alone.
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 status scope ('completed or cancelled') implies this is the historical/audit view rather than the active-schedule view, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of list_schedules as the alternative, and no prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.