Retrieve local user accounts and privilege levels from a configured network device for access auditing, without returning password hashes.
[READ] Local users and privilege levels. Password hashes are NOT returned.
Args: target: Device name from config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context by stating 'Password hashes are NOT returned,' but it does not cover permissions, error behavior, or output structure beyond that exclusion.
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 short, front-loaded with the read marker and key exclusion, then documents the argument. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation with 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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description identifies the returned resources and an important exclusion. It is nearly complete but leaves unclear what happens if target is omitted and does not describe the shape of returned user/privilege data.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so for the sole parameter by defining target as 'Device name from config,' though it does not clarify the optional/default-null behavior.
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 the resource and scope: 'Local users and privilege levels' for a read operation. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the many sibling get_* tools, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to identify it.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description only implies a read operation via '[READ]' and does not explain how this differs from alternatives such as device_facts or get_snmp_information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.