get_intranet_penetration_configRetrieve the intranet penetration configuration from an iKuai router to inspect port mapping and remote access settings for network audits or troubleshooting.
获取内网穿透配置
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what the config contains, whether the feature may be disabled/unconfigured, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. It earns minimal credit only because the annotation carries the safety burden.
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 wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is no front-loaded detail to speak of because there is no detail at all.
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 return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to explain. Still, in a sibling set of ~200 tools containing many similar configuration getters, the description does nothing to help an agent decide this is the right call or what domain ('intranet penetration') actually covers.
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; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false is self-explanatory.
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 is a direct translation of the title ('Get Intranet Penetration Config'), adding no specificity about what configuration is retrieved or scope. It gives no signal to distinguish this from near-neighbors like get_remote_access_config, get_port_forwarding rules, or get_sdwan_status. It borders on tautology.
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 when-to-use guidance, no comparison to alternatives, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and from the surrounding family of 'get_*' config readers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.