get_ipv6_wan_configFetch IPv6 WAN configuration from iKuai routers. It reads the unified IPv6 settings list to expose external network parameters when no dedicated extranet endpoint exists.
获取 IPv6 外网设置
实测：设备没有 ipv6_extranet_setting（返回 1003），
IPv6 内外网配置统一走 ipv6，外网条目在返回列表中。
| 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 safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing empirically-tested backend behavior ('实测'): the missing ipv6_extranet_setting endpoint returns error 1003 and config is consolidated under 'ipv6'. This is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations.
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 purpose sentence, followed by a compact empirical note. Every line is relevant and nothing is padded; the structure is tight for the amount of context it carries.
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, the description needn't document return values, and with zero parameters there is no input burden. It supplies the one thing that matters — where the WAN entry actually lives — making it complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose semantics the description would need to enrich, and schema coverage is 100%.
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 verb+resource ('获取 IPv6 外网设置' = get IPv6 WAN settings), which is clearly distinct from the LAN counterpart (get_ipv6_lan_config) and the generic get_ipv6_config in the sibling list. It adds useful clarification that the device lacks a separate 'ipv6_extranet_setting' endpoint and that WAN config lives inside the unified 'ipv6' list.
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 description implies context by noting that the external-network entry is found in the unified 'ipv6' returned list, which hints at how to obtain the data. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_ipv6_config or get_ipv6_lan_config, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.