Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sylvia-iot-mcp

sylvia-iot-mcp

by woofdogtw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

application_get

Fetch detailed records for a specific application by ID. Provides configuration, status, and metadata for IoT application management.

Instructions

Get details of a specific application.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "applicationId": "<applicationId>"
    },
    "name": "application_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applicationIdYesThe application ID to retrieve.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a specific application is retrieved, with no mention of return format, error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves key operational behavior undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and the primary action is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read operation, the description is minimally workable, but it omits what 'details' include and any error or response expectations. The lack of an output schema and annotations means the description alone does not fully prepare the agent for runtime behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers the only parameter (applicationId) with a clear description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'specific application,' so the baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific application'), which distinguishes it from list/count/create/update/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or scope conditions, so it stops short of a top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus application_list, application_stats, or other application tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools