get_password_self_serviceRetrieve self-service password management settings from an iKuai router to inspect how users manage or reset their own passwords.
获取自助密码管理配置
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the output schema covers what is returned, so the description carries little burden. It nonetheless contributes nothing beyond a restatement of the name — no note on whether the config ever needs enabling, permissions, or side effects.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place for a tool of this triviality.
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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the only real gap is the absence of any contextual note on when an agent should reach for this versus other configuration getters. For a parameterless read tool that is a minor omission.
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 and the baseline of 4 applies. No syntax or format clarification is required.
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 '获取自助密码管理配置' states a specific verb (获取) and resource (自助密码管理配置), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the neighbouring get_* config tools since no sibling covers password self-service. It stops short of any explicit differentiation, but none is needed here.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. Usage is only implied by the read-only 'get config' pattern, which is adequate for a zero-parameter settings fetcher but adds no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.