List all registered devices and their compliance status to monitor endpoint compliance for SOC 2 audits and ongoing monitoring.
List all registered devices.
Args: limit: Max results
Returns: List of devices with compliance status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'List', but says nothing about pagination, ordering, whether results are filtered by user/permission scope, or what happens when limit is exceeded.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the 'Args:'/'Returns:' boilerplate is low-value: the Args line is tautological and the Returns line duplicates information an output schema already provides.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return value need not be re-explained, and the tool is a simple one-param list. Still, the description omits scoping, pagination behavior, and ordering, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly among many similar list tools.
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% and the single parameter is documented only as 'Max results', which merely restates the name 'limit'. No default (50), no bounds, no interaction with pagination are conveyed, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (registered devices), which is a distinct noun from most siblings. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like list_assets, where the boundary between 'devices' and 'assets' is left for the agent to guess.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many other list_* siblings, and no statement of prerequisites or scope (tenant-wide, workspace, etc.). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.