zte-f6600p

router_list_endpoints

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the known public endpoints and their verification status from source data without sending a request to the router, so you can inspect available API routes safely.

Instructions

List the public source-derived endpoint catalog and verification status; no router request.

Tool call template

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": "router_list_endpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact beyond those annotations: this call performs no request to the router, making it a local/cached catalog lookup. It stops short of saying how fresh the catalog is or whether any auth is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the critical 'no router request' caveat is placed where the agent will see it. Slightly dense phrasing ('public source-derived endpoint catalog') costs a little readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values; it only hints at 'endpoint catalog' and 'verification status' without indicating the shape or fields returned. For a simple zero-param list tool this is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are accepted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('endpoint catalog') plus the qualifier 'public source-derived' and mentions verification status. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like router_read and router_soap_read, which perform actual router requests, though 'source-derived' is somewhat jargon-like.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'no router request' implies this is the tool to use when you want to inspect available endpoints without contacting the device, which is useful routing context. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over router_read or router_soap_read, leaving the agent to infer the comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server