Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@nexalware/mcp

@nexalware/mcp

Official
by nexalware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_sub_device

Retrieve a sub-device's current state and capabilities using its master device ID and sub-device ID.

Instructions

Read one sub-device's current state and capabilities.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "deviceId": "<deviceId>",
      "subDeviceId": "<subDeviceId>"
    },
    "name": "get_sub_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceIdYesThe master device's public id.
subDeviceIdYesThe sub-device's public id, e.g. sub_x1y2z3.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read via 'Read' but says nothing about required permissions, error behavior when the sub-device is unknown, or what 'capabilities' actually returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It could be marginally more useful with one routing clause, but it is efficiently structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally clarify the return shape ('current state and capabilities' gestures at it but stays vague) and any auth requirements. It is adequate for a two-parameter read but leaves real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both deviceId and subDeviceId are already documented in the schema (master device public id, sub-device public id). The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or relationships, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one sub-device') plus scope ('current state and capabilities'). It clearly signals single-item retrieval, which distinguishes it from list_sub_devices and get_sub_device_telemetry, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_sub_device_telemetry or list_sub_devices. The agent must infer that this is the single-sub-device state fetch from the phrase 'Read one' alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools