Retrieve a complete list of configuration snippets to review and manage VPN panel settings.
List all configuration snippets
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": "snippets_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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all' implies a non-mutating, full-scope read, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or return shape. This is acceptable for a simple zero-param list but not fully transparent.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and resource.
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 list tool, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. It is slightly held back by not clarifying what a 'configuration snippet' contains or any result format, though no output schema exists.
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?
There are zero parameters and an empty schema, so the description has no parameter details to compensate for. The baseline of 4 applies; the description adds resource clarity beyond the schema, which is sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('configuration snippets'). Among the snippet-related siblings (snippets_create, snippets_update, snippets_delete, snippets_sync), it unambiguously identifies the read-only list operation.
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 usage context is clear: call this tool when you need to see all configuration snippets. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no competing snippet-listing sibling, so the read-only intent is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.