get-deviceFetch detailed status of a Datto backup appliance by serial number: model, client, online state, local/offsite storage usage, region, and warranty.
Details eines Geräts: Modell, Kunde, Online-Status, Speicherbelegung lokal/offsite, Region (CLDSIRIS), Garantie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial | Yes | Seriennummer des Datto-Geräts (z. B. aus list-devices) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (local/offsite storage, warranty, region), but says nothing about auth requirements, freshness of the online status, or error behavior for unknown serials.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource first and the returned fields after. No filler, no repetition of the title.
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, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the key fields, which is genuinely helpful. It is slightly incomplete in not explaining the 'CLDSIRIS' region notation or handling of invalid serials, but it is adequate for a single-record read.
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% and the sole parameter (serial) is documented in the schema with an example source. The description adds no additional meaning about the serial format or where it comes from, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the resource (Gerät) and enumerates the specific fields returned (Modell, Kunde, Online-Status, Speicherbelegung, Region, Garantie), which is more informative than a bare 'get'. However, it never contrasts itself with siblings like list-devices or find-asset, so an agent has to infer that this is a single-record fetch by serial.
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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says this is the lookup for one device by serial, nor points to list-devices/find-asset as alternatives. The only hint ('z. B. aus list-devices') lives in the schema parameter description, not the tool description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.