List connected clients reported by an AsusWRT router to monitor active devices and identify network users.
List connected clients reported by the router.
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": "asuswrt_clients"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose whether it requires admin privileges, how clients are determined (ARP table, active connections), or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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?
The description is one concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimal. It conveys the core function but could be more complete by specifying the type of clients (wired/wireless, active vs. all) or the source data (e.g., ARP table). As it stands, it is adequate but leaves room for improvement.
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 schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and no additional param information is necessary.
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 clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('connected clients reported by the router'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like asuswrt_dhcp_leases, which focus on DHCP leases rather than currently connected clients.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other listing tools (e.g., asuswrt_dhcp_leases, asuswrt_network_overview). The description lacks context for the agent to decide between alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.