list_policiesList connection policies to identify which devices are assigned to specific links, such as VPN tunnels or direct connections.
Connection policies, which decide that a given device leaves through a given link - typically used to send some devices through a VPN tunnel and the rest direct. The names returned here are what a device is assigned to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0-devDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds helpful domain context about what a connection policy is and what the returned names represent, but it doesn't disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior. With annotations handling safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the domain, and the second states what the return values mean. It's efficient, though slightly dense and could be restructured for immediate clarity.
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, read-only listing tool, the description explains the domain, the typical use, and the meaning of the returned names. It doesn't explicitly state the return type (e.g., array of strings), but given the simple resource and no output schema, this is a minor gap.
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 and the schema fully documents that (100% coverage), so the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description adds useful semantic context about the returned values even though no parameters need explanation.
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 explains that the tool returns connection policies, defines what they do (decide which link a device uses), and clarifies that the returned names are the values assigned to devices. It identifies the resource clearly, though the verb 'list' is only implied by 'The names returned here' rather than stated explicitly, and it doesn't directly contrast with sibling tools.
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 a typical use case—routing some devices through a VPN tunnel and the rest direct—which implies when an agent might need policy names. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_vpn or list_routes, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.