Retrieve controller group affinity configuration or current status for a device to verify its controller association settings and operational state.
Get controller group affinity configuration or status for a device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Affinity config or status (default: status) | |
| device_id | Yes | Device ID or system-ip |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description says nothing about whether config retrieval requires elevated permissions, whether the two modes touch different endpoints, or what the response contains. For an unannotated tool this is a meaningful gap.
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 with zero filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though it leaves content gaps handled under other dimensions rather than being padded here.
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?
A simple two-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, so the bar is modest. However, the description never clarifies what 'affinity configuration' or 'affinity status' actually report, leaving an agent to guess at the returned content.
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%, with both parameters documented and the 'type' enum including its default ('status'). The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('controller group affinity configuration or status') scoped to a device. Among the many get_control_* siblings, this names a unique resource, so an agent can discriminate it, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with neighbors like get_control_status.
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 get_control_* siblings, and no guidance on when to request 'config' versus 'status'. The two modes are named but not explained, leaving the choice entirely to the schema enum.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.