get_cross_layer3_configRetrieve the cross-layer3 service configuration from an iKuai router to inspect or verify how traffic is routed across network layers.
获取跨三层服务配置
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, which already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing further (no scope, no prerequisites, no rate or side-effect context). For a zero-argument getter the description contributes essentially no behavioral information beyond the annotation.
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?
The single short phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication of a clear concept. It is neither padded nor adequately 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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and with zero parameters the input side is trivial. However, the domain term 'cross layer3 service configuration' is opaque and the description never clarifies what the tool surfaces, which is the one thing an agent would still need.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline for zero-parameter tools a 4 is appropriate. The schema also declares additionalProperties=false, leaving no ambiguity an agent could misread.
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 '获取跨三层服务配置' is essentially a Chinese restatement of the tool name and title 'Get Cross Layer3 Config', adding no information beyond the identifiers. It does not clarify what a 'cross layer3 service' is or what configuration is returned, so an agent cannot distinguish its purpose from the title alone.
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 guidance on when to call this tool, what preconditions apply, or which sibling (e.g. get_l3-style settings, get_routing_table, get_basic_settings) it relates to. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.