iperf_testMeasure network throughput by running an iPerf test from an iKuai router to a target server, specifying port, duration, and egress interface.
执行 iPerf 吞吐测试
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | 端口 | |
| server | Yes | iPerf 服务器 IP | |
| duration | No | 测试时长(秒) | |
| interface | No | 出口接口 |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say that this generates sustained network traffic for a configurable duration, that it may consume bandwidth or be disruptive, whether it is safe/read-only, or what side effects occur on the target server. Only the bare operation is named.
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 sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than optimal information density.
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 explained, and the schema covers all parameters. But for a network throughput test the description omits the operational context an agent needs: that it actively sends traffic, that duration controls test length, and that a live iPerf endpoint is required. The definition is too thin for the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (server, port, duration, interface) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning such as default behavior, units beyond the schema's 'seconds', or constraints on server/interface values.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('执行 iPerf 吞吐测试' = run an iPerf throughput test), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish this from siblings like speed_test or ping_test, which are adjacent network-measurement tools an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 use this tool versus speed_test or ping_test, no prerequisites (e.g., that a reachable iPerf server must already exist), and no mention of what happens during or after the test. The description offers zero usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.