Retrieves current DHCP leases by querying Kea, ISC dhcpd, and dnsmasq backends, then reports which one actually holds them.
Current DHCP leases across all backends (Kea, ISC dhcpd, dnsmasq).
Queries all three and reports which backend actually holds leases.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: this is a fan-out query across three backends that also reports which backend actually holds the leases — information an agent needs to interpret the result. It stops short of saying how partial backend failures are surfaced.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the aggregation behavior. Nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return values. The one unaddressed concern for a multi-backend query is what happens if a backend is unreachable (error vs. partial results), which the description leaves silent.
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; the baseline for a no-param tool applies.
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 ('Current DHCP leases') and narrows scope by naming the three backends covered (Kea, ISC dhcpd, dnsmasq). No sibling tool touches DHCP, so differentiation is implicit, but an agent knows exactly what this returns.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource itself (ask for leases when you need lease data), and the second sentence hints that some backends may be empty. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and no alternatives named — though no DHCP alternative exists among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.