Fetch users currently connected to a node, returning their IPs and last-seen times by starting a job and waiting for the result.
Get users currently connected to a node with their IPs and last-seen time (starts a job and waits).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeUuid | Yes | Node UUID | |
| timeoutSec | No | Max seconds to wait for the node to answer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious operational trait: this starts a job and blocks waiting for the node to answer, which matters given the 5-120s timeout. It still omits what happens on node timeout/failure, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and payload, with the blocking-job caveat compactly bracketed at the end. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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?
With no output schema the description usefully names the return fields, and it discloses the job/wait behavior and latency implication. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, lacking only failure/timeout outcome behavior.
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 coverage is 100% with two fully documented parameters (nodeUuid, timeoutSec). The description adds no format, constraint, or interpretation detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource — retrieving users connected to a node — plus the returned fields (IPs, last-seen time). It is clearly distinct from the sibling user_connections (which goes the other direction), though it never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative user_connections. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the 'starts a job and waits' parenthetical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.