list_api_tokensRetrieve personal API tokens configured on an iKuai router. Use this to inspect existing credentials for auditing, management, or access reviews.
列出个人 API 令牌
| 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 readOnlyHint=true annotation already declares this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description does not need to re-establish that. The word '个人' (personal) adds a genuine scoping detail beyond the annotations, implying the caller's own tokens rather than all tokens, but nothing is said about token masking, expiration, or result shape.
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 phrase, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful.
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?
For a parameterless, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits whether tokens are returned masked, whether the list is paginated, or what 'personal' excludes. These gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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. Schema coverage is 100% and no enums or nested objects exist.
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 combination ('列出' = list, '个人 API 令牌' = personal API tokens), which is unambiguous. No sibling tool in the list deals with API tokens, so differentiation is moot, but the description also does not proactively distinguish this from other credential-related siblings.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that it is a simple read of the caller's own tokens.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.