Retrieve active TCP connections on the WLAN Pi to inspect network activity. Optionally specify a network namespace for isolated views.
Get active TCP sockets/connections on the WLAN Pi.
Args: namespace: Optional network namespace to query (default: root namespace)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' and the qualifier 'active' imply a read-only snapshot of current TCP connections, and the namespace default is stated. However, it does not disclose error behavior for invalid namespaces, permission requirements, or whether listening sockets are included.
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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter explanation kept to a single useful line. Every element earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity, one optional parameter, and an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the protocol, the scope, and the parameter semantics. It could add a brief caveat about namespace validity or output interpretation, but nothing essential is missing.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies the sole parameter as an 'Optional network namespace to query' and states the default behavior ('default: root namespace'). For a one-parameter tool, this meaningfully compensates for the schema gap.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('active TCP sockets/connections on the WLAN Pi'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_udp_connections by explicitly scoping to TCP, so an agent can identify the correct operation without opening schemas.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_udp_connections, get_dhcp_leases, or get_routing_table. It also gives no context on prerequisites, expected conditions, 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.