sylvia-iot-mcp

device_list

List devices in an IoT unit using filters by network, address, profile, name substring, and pagination to quickly locate specific devices.

Instructions

List devices in a unit.

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": {
      "unit": "<unit>"
    },
    "name": "device_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`addr`	No	Filter by network address.
`sort`	No	Sort key:order. Keys: network, addr, created, modified, profile, name.
`unit`	Yes	Unit ID (required for normal users).
`limit`	No	Max items; 0 for all (default 100).
`offset`	No	Data offset (default 0).
`network`	No	Filter by network ID.
`profile`	No	Filter by device profile.
`contains`	No	Filter by name substring.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval rather than a mutation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, access constraints, default limit, or return shape. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently and earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a four-word description is sparse. It omits what the response looks like, how filtering/sorting/pagination behave, and any cautionary context, leaving the agent to rely almost entirely on the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only the 'in a unit' scope, matching the required unit parameter, without adding extra semantics.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('List devices') and scopes it to a unit, which distinguishes it from device_get, device_update, and device_delete. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like device_count or device_route_list, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus device_count for counting, device_get for a single device, or device_route_list for routes. The context signal shows many sibling list/count tools, but the description leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server