Fetch all properties for a LogicMonitor device using its device ID, with optional name filtering to isolate specific configuration or metadata values.
Get all properties of a device (resource)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| device_id | Yes | Device ID | |
| name_filter | No | Filter by property name (substring match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'get'. It does not mention pagination, result limits, filtering behavior, or any caveats, so it provides no value beyond 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 short and front-loaded with the key action and resource. The parenthetical '(resource)' adds little value and slightly weakens an otherwise concise statement.
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 and no usage guidance, the description is thin for a tool that sits among many device-related siblings. It does not explain what 'properties' includes, how filtering works, or how this relates to get_device_property, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.
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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline this is acceptable when the schema carries the burden.
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 a 'get' operation on device properties, and 'all properties' distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_device_property. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or explain when to choose this over get_device_property, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_device_property, get_device_datasources, or get_device_instances. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.