Discovers local network devices by combining ARP and RFC1918 filtering, then enriches each with vendor and hostname details for inventory checks.
Inventory: ARP ∪ RFC1918 filter, enriched with vendor (OUI) + hostname (PTR).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the method: ARP union RFC1918 filtering and enrichment via OUI and PTR. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it scans or only reads local tables, expected runtime, or any rate-limit or permission behavior.
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 definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core operation before the enrichment details. The compactness is appropriate for a zero-parameter inventory tool.
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 tool, the description explains the data sources and enrichment, but with no output schema or annotations it does not describe the return format, whether results are sorted, or how RFC1918 filtering affects scope. It is adequate but leaves several operationally useful details implicit.
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 zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful differentiator. The empty schema is fully described and the description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation.
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 states a concrete inventory operation over LAN devices and specifies the data sources: ARP union RFC1918 filtering, plus OUI vendor and PTR hostname enrichment. It is clear enough to distinguish this from a bare hostname or ARP lookup, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as lan.arp or lan.newdevices.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like lan.arp, lan.sweep, or lan.newdevices. The only implied usage is that this produces a device inventory, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.