Lists local network interfaces with names, MAC addresses, IPv4/IPv6 addresses, and types to diagnose connectivity and inventory host network settings.
Network interfaces (Nic[]): name, mac, ipv4[], ipv6[], type.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, side effects, or whether empty arrays are normal (e.g. no ipv6). Local enumeration is implicitly a safe read, but the definition never states 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?
A single compact statement with no filler, front-loading the return type. It reads as a schema fragment rather than prose, which is efficient but slightly cryptic for an agent that has no other context.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by listing the result fields (name, mac, ipv4[], ipv6[], type). The remaining gap is scope: whether these are the local host's adapters or LAN-wide data, which is exactly the ambiguity that matters given the sibling set.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead documents the Nic[] record shape, which is useful but is output information rather than parameter meaning.
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 names a specific resource (network interfaces) and enumerates the returned fields, but uses no verb and never says whose interfaces these are – local host NICs versus something discovered on the LAN. With siblings like lan.devices, lan.arp and lan.gateway, an agent could reasonably misroute to this tool.
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 exclusion rules, and no reference to any of the 30 sibling tools. The agent must infer from the field list alone whether this is the right tool for enumerating local adapters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.