lucky_list_stun_rulesList STUN/NAT mapping rules to inspect configured name, listen port, and public address for each rule.
List STUN/NAT mapping rules (name, listen port, public address when known).
| 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the nuance that the public address is shown 'when known', which is useful, but no further behavioral details like pagination or ordering are disclosed.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists the informative fields with a precise qualifier. No wasted words.
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, read-only listing tool, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns and the caveat about the public address. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning by listing the fields that will appear in the result, even though there is nothing to explain about parameter inputs.
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 ('STUN/NAT mapping rules'), and enumerates the returned fields (name, listen port, public address). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lucky_set_stun_enabled or lucky_stun_logs.
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 intended use as a read-only listing operation is implied by the verb and resource, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. The sibling tools that modify STUN settings are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.