Retrieve devices targeted by a specific instruction ID to verify their scope and identify affected endpoints for management.
Get the list of devices that were targeted by an instruction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instructionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic read operation and gives no information about permissions, how 'targeted' is defined (direct vs. group), empty-result behavior, or whether the returned list contains IDs or full device objects.
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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose, though it sacrifices some behavioral context.
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 simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps. It does not clarify whether the result is a list of device identifiers, FQDNs, or objects, nor how this list relates to other instruction-related tools. An agent would need to infer too much.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not describe the instructionId parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no guidance on where to obtain a valid instructionId or any constraints on the value.
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 specific verb ('get') and resource ('list of devices') with a qualifier ('targeted by an instruction'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like instructions_get_responding_devices (devices that responded) and instructions_get_responses (response payloads).
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 such as instructions_get_responding_devices or instructions_get_responses. It does not state any exclusions or selection criteria, so an agent is left to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.