get_arp_logRetrieve ARP logs from an iKuai router to inspect address resolution activity and diagnose network connectivity or IP-to-MAC mapping issues.
获取 ARP 日志
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of log window, retention, live vs. historical data, ordering, or size, all of which are relevant traits for a log-fetching call.
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 five-character phrase with zero filler and no burying of key information. It is as tight as possible, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true economy.
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?
Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and the tool has no parameters to document. Still, for a log-retrieval tool with many log-named siblings, one clause on scope (e.g. ARP entries observed by the router) would make it genuinely complete.
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 and the schema is fully covered, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies per the rules for parameter-free tools.
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?
"获取 ARP 日志" states a specific verb (get) and resource (ARP log), which does distinguish it from the ARP-binding siblings such as list_arp_bindings or add_arp_binding. However, it is essentially the tool name restated in another language, with no elaboration on what an ARP log is or how it differs from neighbouring log tools like get_dhcp_log.
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 when-to-use information, no alternatives, no prerequisites. With ~180 siblings including several other log tools (get_auth_log, get_dhcp_log, get_ddns_log), the agent gets no help deciding which log to fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.