get_connection_tableRetrieve real-time connection and flow table data from iKuai routers to inspect active network sessions and support traffic monitoring or troubleshooting.
获取流表/连接查看（当前实时连接）
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the fact that results reflect current, real-time connections (a snapshot, not history), which is a modest but genuine behavioral detail; no rate limits, auth needs, or freshness caveats are given.
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 short phrase with no padding and the key scope qualifier placed up front. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument read tool, though it borders on too terse to be informative.
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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the input surface is trivially complete. The only real gap is usage context relative to sibling list/log tools.
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 the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.
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?
The description ('Get flow table / connection view') largely restates the tool name, but the parenthetical '(current real-time connections)' does narrow the scope to live connection data rather than historical logs. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_terminal_list or list_connection_limits, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The parenthetical hints at real-time scope but gives no routing guidance among the many log/list/get siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.