Maps each router along the path to a host and shows where replies stop, helping locate network reachability failures.
List every router on the path to a host and where the replies stop.
Args: host: Host name or IP address. max_hops: Most routers to try, 1 to 30.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| max_hops | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about expected duration, hop timeouts, whether non-responsive hops are skipped or shown, or that the operation is a harmless read. 'Where the replies stop' gestures at the result shape but doesn't disclose operational 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?
Two tightly packed statements with zero filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded before the Args block. The Args formatting is slightly mechanical but costs little.
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?
A simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, so the bar is modest, but with no annotations the definition should at least flag cost/latency or the read-only nature and what happens with unresponsive hops. The essential call information is present and correct.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: it clarifies host as a name or IP and adds the 1-30 bound for max_hops that the schema does not encode. It omits the default (15), which only the schema's 'default' field supplies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List every router on the path to a host', plus the outcome it surfaces ('where the replies stop'). This is clearly distinct from siblings like ping and route_table in practice, though the description never names or contrasts them.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and siblings such as ping, route_table, and diagnose are not mentioned. However, 'where the replies stop' implies the diagnostic scenario (finding where connectivity breaks), giving implied rather than stated usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.