kick_pppoe_userDisconnect a specific PPPoE user from an iKuai router by providing their username. Use this to force a user offline for network management or security.
踢下线指定用户
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the immediate action. It omits critical context such as the disruptive/disconnective nature, permission requirements, reversibility, and side effects on the user's session.
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, which is concise but severely under-specified for a disruptive operation. Conciseness is not the problem; the lack of necessary detail makes it inadequate.
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 is a mutation/disruption action with no annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no usage guidance, the description is far from complete. The output schema covers return values, but the description still misses essential operational context.
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 schema has one required parameter (username) with 0% description coverage. The description's '指定用户' (specified user) only vaguely implies a user identifier and does not specify the expected format, source, or how to obtain the correct username.
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 clear action ('踢下线' / kick offline) and a target ('指定用户' / specified user), but does not mention PPPoE despite the tool name and does not differentiate from sibling user-management tools. The purpose is understandable but vague about which user set this applies to.
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?
No guidance is given on when or why to use this tool. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an online user from list_pppoe_online_users) or alternatives for disconnecting users. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.