get_port_mirror_configRetrieve port mirroring configuration from an iKuai router. Use it to inspect or manage mirrored ports for network monitoring.
获取端口镜像配置
| 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 only annotation is readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'get' verb is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond the annotation—no scope, no return expectations, no side effects—which is minimal at best.
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 description is a single short phrase with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than truly concise, since it merely repeats the tool's name and omits any useful framing.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, read-only annotation, and an output schema that documents return values), the description does not need to explain much more in order for an agent to call it correctly. It is adequate for the task, though it contributes no extra routing or contextual value.
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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.
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 '获取端口镜像配置' ('Get port mirror configuration') is a direct Chinese restatement of the tool's English title and name, adding no information beyond the name. It identifies the resource but is a tautology under the rubric's definition.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many sibling get_* configuration tools. It simply labels the operation with no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.