lucky_list_ddnsList DDNS tasks in compact form showing provider, domains, and last IP, with secrets redacted.
List DDNS tasks in compact form (provider, domains, last IP). Provider secrets are redacted. Creating a new provider task is provider-specific; use lucky_api_call only if you already have a native payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output behavior beyond annotations by stating that provider secrets are redacted and that the result is compact. This gives the agent concrete expectations about the response.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action and expected output fields, and the second adds a relevant routing caveat for a related operation. This is appropriately sized and well structured.
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 zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: it identifies the result fields and warns that secrets are redacted. The annotations cover the read-only and non-destructive behavior, so nothing essential is missing.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter documentation is required. The description does not attempt to explain nonexistent parameters; its mention of provider, domains, and last IP concerns response content rather than input semantics.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('DDNS tasks'), and the compact output scope (provider, domains, last IP). It also differentiates from the generic lucky_api_call by noting that creating new provider tasks is provider-specific. This leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
It gives explicit guidance for a common adjacent action: creating a new provider task should go through lucky_api_call, and only when a native payload is already available. However, it does not explicitly contrast with lucky_get_ddns for retrieving a single task's full details, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.