Lists JumpServer connect methods observed for assets, with optional filtering by protocol to identify available access paths without GUI dependencies.
List observed JumpServer connect methods, optionally narrowed to one protocol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocol | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds context by mentioning 'observed' methods and 'optionally narrowed' behavior, giving some insight into the data source and filtering capability. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, permission requirements, or return format, leaving room for more transparency.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by the optional filtering behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 list tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose and the sole parameter. The main gap is that it does not elaborate on what 'connect methods' are or provide any background context, but given the tool's low complexity, this is adequate.
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 one optional parameter 'protocol' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by stating 'optionally narrowed to one protocol,' which clearly explains the parameter's purpose and usage. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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 specifies the action ('List'), the resource ('JumpServer connect methods'), and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('observed'). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like jms_list_assets or jms_list_connection_tokens.
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 when to use the tool: when one needs to list connect methods, optionally filtered by protocol. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools. Usage context is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.