sylvia-iot-mcp

application_send_dldata

Send downlink data to a target device through an application using a hex-encoded payload, enabling IoT device command delivery.

Instructions

Send downlink data to a device via an 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>",
      "deviceId": "<deviceId>",
      "payload": "<payload>"
    },
    "name": "application_send_dldata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payload`	Yes	Data payload in hexadecimal string format.
`deviceId`	Yes	Target device ID.
`applicationId`	Yes	The application ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not explain side effects, delivery semantics, permissions, error behavior, or what happens after the downlink data is sent.

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 sentence with no filler. It expands the terse 'dldata' abbreviation into 'downlink data' and clearly front-loads the operation, target, and context.

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 tool with three fully documented parameters, the definition is minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks behavioral context such as delivery confirmation, failure modes, and whether the action is immediate or queued.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions: hex payload, target device ID, and application ID. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb, 'send,' and a specific resource, 'downlink data,' while also identifying the target ('a device') and the context ('via an application'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool network_send_uldata by direction and entity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The use case is implied by the description: use this tool when you need to send downlink data to a device through an application. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

Deploy Server