Skip to main content
Glama
ryanmat

io.github.ryanmat/logicmonitor

by ryanmat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_devices

Read-onlyIdempotent

List LogicMonitor resources and filter by name, hostname, status, or device group. Use raw filters for custom property queries.

Instructions

List devices (resources) from LogicMonitor with optional filtering

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (max 1000)
filterNoRaw filter expression (overrides other filters). Syntax: field:value, field~value. String values must be quoted: displayName~"server". Custom property queries use dot-notation: customProperties.name:"env",customProperties.value:"prod"
offsetNoPagination offset
statusNoFilter by device status
group_idNoFilter by device group ID
name_filterNoFilter by display name (substring match)
hostname_filterNoFilter by hostname or IP address (substring match)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the schema's filter parameters. It does not mention pagination behavior, result shape, or scope limitations, and it does not contradict 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core operation immediately. It is concise, though the phrase 'with optional filtering' is largely redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list operation with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema and no mention of what the returned device list contains or how results are paginated, an agent is left to infer behavior beyond invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is necessary because the schema documents fields, defaults, enums, and filter syntax.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a clear verb and resource ('List devices (resources) from LogicMonitor') and notes the tool supports filtering. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like get_device, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_device, get_device_groups, or other device-related tools. 'With optional filtering' hints at capability but does not specify use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools