Lists all internal squads in the Remnawave VPN panel, providing a quick view of team groups for administration.
List all internal squads
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": "squads_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. 'List all internal squads' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify pagination behavior, sorting, filtering capabilities, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'internal' means operationally. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters.
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 read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'internal' means, what data is returned, whether results are paginated, or any authentication requirements. With no annotations and no output schema, more context is needed for effective tool use.
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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
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') and resource ('all internal squads'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'squads_get' (which might retrieve a specific squad), but the scope 'all' provides some differentiation from single-resource retrieval operations.
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 sibling tools like 'squads_get' (likely for retrieving specific squads) and 'squads_create'/'squads_update'/'squads_delete' (for mutations), there's no indication of when this list operation is appropriate versus those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.