Retrieve all active user connections for a specific node by providing its UUID. Starts an asynchronous job and returns a job ID to track progress, enabling efficient monitoring of node activity.
Fetch connections for all users on a node (async job, returns jobId)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeUuid | Yes | Node UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: this is an asynchronous job and it returns a jobId. This goes beyond the tool name and schema, giving agents the essential operational context, even though it does not mention polling or result retrieval.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope, while appending the critical async/jobId detail. 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?
Given the async complexity, the description adequately communicates the start of an async job and its jobId return. It does not explicitly instruct on polling or where to retrieve results, but sibling tool names like connections_get_node_result make the follow-up discoverable. This is reasonably complete for a fetch tool.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter nodeUuid, so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description merely restates the concept of 'node' without adding format, constraints, or additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly specifies the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'connections for all users on a node', which distinguishes it from the sibling 'connections_fetch_by_user'. The async behavior and return of jobId are also stated, leaving no ambiguity about what this 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?
The description implies when to use it ('for all users on a node') and hints at async behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with tools like connections_fetch_by_user or connections_get_node_result. Usage context is clear but no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.