Retrieve internal squads and their inbounds from the Remnawave panel. Set full=true to include raw xray inbound objects.
List internal squads with their inbounds. full=true adds the raw xray inbound objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Return the raw panel response, including rawInbound |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds some value by disclosing that output includes inbounds and that full=true surfaces raw xray inbound objects, but does not describe pagination, filtering, or how much data is returned.
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, both earning their place, with the core purpose front-loaded before the parameter note. 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the optional flag adequately. It stops short of enumerating what a squad record contains or how results are ordered, which would be minor completeness gains.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'full' parameter. The description reiterates its effect ('adds the raw xray inbound objects') in nearly the same terms as the schema, adding marginal meaning beyond it.
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 ('List internal squads') and specifies the payload scope ('with their inbounds'). The word 'internal' usefully distinguishes it from the external_squads_list sibling, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus squads_get or external_squads_list. Usage is only implied by the 'list' verb and the optional full flag; no conditions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.