Add a new device or resource to LogicMonitor by providing hostname/IP, display name, and collector ID, enabling monitoring setup.
Create a new device/resource (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Device hostname or IP address | |
| description | No | Device description | |
| display_name | Yes | Display name | |
| host_group_ids | No | Group IDs | |
| custom_properties | No | Custom properties | |
| preferred_collector_id | Yes | Collector ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the permission requirement, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behaviors such as return values, idempotency, or duplicate handling. This is adequate given the annotations cover the safety profile.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and permission requirement. It is appropriately short for a simple create tool, though it omits any usage context that could enhance its value.
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?
The tool is a straightforward creation operation with a well-covered schema and no output schema. The description covers the essential permission prerequisite but lacks details about what happens on success (e.g., return value) or edge cases like duplicate names. This is minimal but viable.
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 all six parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Create a new device/resource') that distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_device_group. The added 'requires write permission' clarifies access needs, though 'device/resource' is slightly ambiguous given the context.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_device, delete_device, or bulk creation. There is no mention of prerequisites beyond permission, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.