Retrieve the devices that belong to a management group by its integer ID, allowing you to inspect membership and verify group assignments.
Get the devices that are members of a Management Group by its integer ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Integer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly implies a read-only operation that returns devices, which is helpful given there are no annotations. However, it does not disclose response shape, empty-result behavior, whether membership is direct only, or what happens for an invalid ID; for a simple single-parameter getter this is acceptable but not rich.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core operation and the identifying parameter. There is no redundancy or filler, and every word contributes to understanding.
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, the description is reasonably complete, but it leaves important context open: how it relates to management_groups_get_all_devices, whether nested or direct membership is returned, and what the response contains. Since there is no output schema, some of this burden falls on the description.
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 input schema already covers the only parameter with 'Integer ID', and the description merely repeats 'integer ID' without adding further meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.
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 action ('Get the devices that are members') and resource ('Management Group by its integer ID'), which is clear and scoped. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very similar sibling management_groups_get_all_devices, leaving potential ambiguity about how 'contents' differs from 'all devices'.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as management_groups_get_all_devices, management_groups_get_by_id, or devices_get_management_groups_by_fqdn. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, so the agent must infer the correct context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.