Lists all Remnawave hosts registered in the panel. Use it to view available hosts for VPN infrastructure management.
List all Remnawave hosts
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "hosts_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it returns all hosts at once, uses pagination, requires authentication, has rate limits, or provides any metadata about the hosts. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'hosts' are in this context, what data is returned (e.g., host names, IDs, statuses), or any behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. For a list operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed.
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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.
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 clearly states the action ('List all') and the resource ('Remnawave hosts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'hosts_get' (which presumably retrieves a single host) or 'nodes_list' (which lists a different resource type), so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'hosts_get' (for single host details), 'nodes_list' (for different resources), and 'users_list' (for user listings), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.