List TRMNL devices to view names, numeric IDs, refresh intervals, sleep settings, and last check-in times, while excluding sensitive credentials and hardware identifiers.
List your TRMNL devices with names, numeric IDs, refresh interval in seconds, sleep settings and last check-in. Credentials and hardware identifiers are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's main value-add is listing return fields and exclusions. This goes beyond structured data by specifying what data the agent can expect (including 'sleep settings' and 'last check-in') and what is intentionally omitted. This is useful context that complements the annotations.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the exclusion note is efficiently appended. 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?
With no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what fields are returned and what is excluded, which is the primary information an agent needs. It does not mention pagination behavior, but that is implicitly covered by the limit/offset parameters in the schema. The description is complete enough for a simple read-only list operation.
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 0% — the description does not mention the 'limit' or 'offset' parameters at all. While the schema provides defaults and ranges, the description does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining that these control pagination or how they affect results. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'TRMNL devices', and enumerates the specific fields returned (names, numeric IDs, refresh interval, sleep settings, last check-in). It also explicitly notes exclusions (credentials and hardware identifiers), which unambiguously distinguishes this tool from sibling playlist tools.
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 resource type 'TRMNL devices' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and sibling names all relate to playlist items, so an agent can easily infer this is the device-listing tool. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.