tailscale_list_devicesList all devices in the tailnet (name, addresses, OS, last seen, tags, etc.). Tailscale REST: GET /tailnet/{tailnet}/devices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Field set — 'all' returns all fields incl. posture attributes and routes; 'default' is the standard subset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by disclosing the scope ('all devices') and the type of information returned. No contradictions; it just doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.
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?
The description is two short sentences that front-load the action and resource, then provide the REST endpoint. No superfluous words; every part adds context.
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?
This is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers scope, returned fields, and the API endpoint, and the sibling set clarifies its unique role among device-related operations.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage: the sole 'fields' parameter is described with its enum and meaning. The description does not add parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 clearly states 'List all devices in the tailnet' with a specific verb and resource, enumerates the returned attributes (name, addresses, OS, last seen, tags), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_device or list_device_routes.
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?
The description implies usage for listing all devices and includes the REST endpoint for context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_device for a single device. The context is clear, yet exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. For example, list/get/delete keys are clearly separated by operation, and DNS-related tools each address a different aspect (preferences, nameservers, searchpaths, split-dns). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the `tailscale_<verb>_<noun>` pattern with consistent vocabulary (list, get, create, delete, set, expire, authorize). The style is uniformly snake_case, making the set predictable.
22 tools is on the higher end but still within a manageable scope for a comprehensive Tailscale API wrapper. Each tool covers a distinct endpoint, and no obvious duplication exists, though the number edges toward heavy.
The server provides strong coverage for devices and auth keys (CRUD plus actions), but DNS preferences, nameservers, search paths, split-DNS, policy file, tailnet settings, and webhooks are read-only. Missing update operations for these tailnet configuration resources are notable gaps for a management tool.