Get a user's current connections with IPs per node by starting a job and waiting for the result. Use it to see which nodes a user is connected to in Remnawave.
Get a user's current connections (IPs per node) — starts a job and waits for the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | User numeric ID | |
| 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?
The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), but the description adds a genuinely important behavioral trait: this read actually starts a job and blocks waiting for it, so latency and partial-failure behavior matter. It stops short of saying what happens if the wait exceeds timeoutSec (error vs. partial data) or whether concurrent calls are allowed.
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 return shape, with the job/wait caveat appended where it is most useful. No filler.
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?
For a two-parameter async read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (IPs per node) and the job/blocking behavior. The main residual gap is timeout semantics — whether a timeout yields an error or partial results.
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 description coverage is 100%, including a documented default/range for timeoutSec, so the schema carries parameter meaning on its own. The description adds nothing about userId format or the blocking role of timeoutSec beyond 'waits for the result'. 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?
Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get a user's current connections') and even names the returned shape (IPs per node), which is more than the name conveys. It is implicitly distinct from node_connections (user-scoped vs node-scoped) and from get_user_by_id, but it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
No statement of when this is preferable to node_connections, get_user_by_id, or get_user_hwid_devices, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'a user's current connections'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.