List all services available for management on a WLAN Pi device, including those that can be started, stopped, or queried. Quickly identify which services are manageable.
List all services that can be managed on this WLAN Pi (started, stopped, or queried).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' and the qualifier 'can be managed' clearly signal a read-only enumeration with no mutation, though it does not explicitly state side-effect guarantees or response-shape 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with a parenthetical clarifying the meaning of 'managed.' Every word contributes; there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
This is a zero-parameter enumeration tool with an output schema available. The description fully identifies the resource being listed and the operations those services support, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameters requiring explanation. The baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing for the description to add at the parameter level.
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 and resource: 'List all services that can be managed on this WLAN Pi' and clarifies the relevant operations: 'started, stopped, or queried.' This clearly distinguishes it from service-control siblings like start_service, stop_service, and get_service_status.
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 phrase 'services that can be managed... started, stopped, or queried' implies this tool is the discovery step before service-control/status tools, but it does not explicitly name those siblings or state when not to use it. Context is clear, but explicit exclusions and alternatives are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.