Retrieve full details and characteristics of a specific SprutHub accessory by accessory ID. Use it to inspect device state, properties, and capabilities.
Get complete details and all characteristics of a specific accessory.
Args: accessory_id: The ID of the accessory (e.g. 1155).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accessory_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an invalid ID, or what 'all characteristics' concretely includes.
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?
Front-loaded single sentence stating purpose, followed by a compact Args block. No filler, though the Args section restates the one parameter already in the schema.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is identified. Still missing how to obtain the accessory_id and failure behavior, which matters for a lookup tool.
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 coverage is 0% and the schema only has the title 'Accessory Id', so the description must compensate. It does add a concrete example (1155) and clarifies the ID identifies an accessory, but gives no format or source for obtaining the ID.
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 (Get) and resource (details/characteristics of a specific accessory), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling sprut_list_devices by scoping to a single device. However, it never names the sibling or contrasts explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as sprut_list_devices for discovering IDs. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'specific accessory'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.