Retrieve detailed information about a specific device by providing its device ID, enabling quick access to resource status and monitoring details.
Get detailed information about a specific device (resource)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | Yes | Device ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the verb 'Get', such as what 'detailed information' includes, error behavior, or relationship to other device-related operations.
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 one short sentence with no wasted words. The core action and target resource are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.
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 one-parameter getter with strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks an explicit statement of what the returned information contains and does not disambiguate from the many get_device_* sibling tools. Without an output schema, more specificity would improve completeness.
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%, and the single required device_id is documented in the schema as 'Device ID'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific device (resource)'. It indicates a single-item operation, which helps distinguish it from the plural get_devices list operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_devices, get_device_data, or get_device_datasources. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.