Request active connections on a node to get a job ID; fetch results with connections_by_node_result.
Request the active connections on a node. Starts a job on the node(s) and returns a jobId — fetch the outcome with connections_by_node_result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeUuid | Yes | Node UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the non-obvious async behavior: it starts a job and returns a jobId rather than the data inline. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't detail job lifetime or polling, but the key behavioral trait is 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed immediately by the action and the follow-up tool. 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 one-parameter async tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the job-based mechanism, and where the result lives. The plural 'node(s)' phrasing is a small ambiguity, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents nodeUuid, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. The only note is a minor mismatch: the description says 'node(s)' plural while the schema accepts a single nodeUuid. 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Request the active connections on a node') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the companion tool connections_by_node_result. An agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs from the result/other connection siblings.
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?
Describes the async job pattern and names the alternative for retrieving the outcome ('fetch the outcome with connections_by_node_result'), which is strong next-step routing. It doesn't clarify when to prefer this over connections_by_user_request, but the workflow guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.