Read PoE budget totals and per-port state—priority, class, watts, volts, status, fault and unpowered flags—from TP-Link Easy Smart switches without altering settings.
Read-only: PoE budget totals and per-port state, priority, power limit, PD class ("--" when none), watts, milliamps, volts and status, plus derived fault_ports and unpowered_enabled_ports. Does not mutate.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden itself, explicitly declaring 'Read-only' and 'Does not mutate' and disclosing derived output fields (fault_ports, unpowered_enabled_ports) and the '--' sentinel for missing PD class. It stops short of auth requirements or rate/scale notes.
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?
Front-loaded with the read-only guarantee, then a compact enumeration of returned fields. Dense but every clause carries field-level information; no filler sentences.
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?
With no output schema present, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields and derived values, including edge-case semantics. Only missing auth/permission context relative to siblings like switch_check_auth.
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 no parameters, so the 4 baseline applies; there is no argument semantics for the description to add.
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 read verb and resource (PoE budget/port state) and enumerates the exact fields returned, so it is clearly distinguishable from the write-side siblings switch_set_poe and switch_poe_cycle.
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 read-only framing implicitly positions it against switch_set_poe, but no sibling is named and no condition for choosing it over switch_get_ports or switch_get_port_stats is given. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.