list_custom_protocolsRetrieve custom protocol definitions configured on an iKuai router to inspect network traffic rules and troubleshoot protocol-based policies.
列出自定义协议
| 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?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether results are paginated, whether they are scoped to a profile/policy, or any other behavior beyond the plain label.
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?
It is a single short phrase with zero waste and is trivially front-loaded, but for this tool that brevity shades into under-specification rather than crisp conciseness. Nothing is said that helps an agent act.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, read-only, output schema present), so the description needn't explain return values. Still, for a listing tool in a family containing 'list_advanced_custom_protocols', 'list_protocol_groups' and 'list_custom_isp_rules', the absence of any disambiguation leaves a real gap.
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 the baseline is 4. With no inputs to explain, the description has no parameter burden to carry and does not need to compensate.
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 gives a clear verb+resource ('列出自定义协议' = list custom protocols), which is specific enough to understand the operation. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish this tool from the near-identically named sibling 'list_advanced_custom_protocols', leaving the agent to guess which list it needs.
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 the many other list_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The agent gets a label, not a routing rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.