Keenetic NOC MCP

Connection status

get_connection_status

Read-only

Tests RCI reachability and authentication securely. Verifies connection status without exposing credentials.

Instructions

Safely tests RCI reachability and authentication without exposing credentials.

Tool call template

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": "get_connection_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-devSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the main read-only safety is covered; the description adds that it tests authentication 'without exposing credentials,' which is a meaningful behavioral promise not present in structured data. It stops short of explaining any probe mechanics, but this is sufficient for a read-only check.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence states purpose and a key safety trait with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, parameterless, read-only status probe, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly and understand its purpose. The only small gaps are the undefined 'RCI' acronym and no mention of what kind of status or result is returned, though the title and purpose make this inferable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default and no parameter explanation is needed. The grounding in the description is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb 'tests' and identifies the resource as 'RCI reachability and authentication,' making the tool's function concrete. The RCI qualifier distinguishes it from sibling connectivity tools like get_internet_status and get_dns_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. While 'safely' suggests it is a non-destructive probe, no sibling or exclusion is named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.