Fetch the current configuration's routing rules in priority order to inspect or troubleshoot proxy behavior.
列出当前运行配置的全部 rules（按命中优先级顺序）。
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": "list_rules"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the ordering semantics (hit-priority) and that scope is the running config, but says nothing about read-only safety, result size, or whether the list reflects unsaved state.
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 with zero waste, front-loading the resource and immediately qualifying scope and ordering. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned conceptually (rules) and how they are ordered. It stops short of indicating the shape of an individual rule entry, which an agent would need since no output schema exists to supply it.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or paging inputs are needed.
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 (列出) and resource (rules), scoped to the currently running config, and adds that results are in hit-priority order. It is clearly distinct from add_rules (mutation) and list_profiles (different resource), though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 '当前运行配置' implies the tool is for inspecting the live/active configuration rather than a stored profile, which is usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., reload_config or switch_profile) and no stated exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.