list_ipv6_static_bindingsRetrieve IPv6 prefix static bindings from an iKuai router to review current address assignments and support network configuration.
列出 IPv6 前缀静态分配
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and an output schema exists to describe the return shape, so the description carries little burden. It nevertheless adds zero behavioral context beyond the annotations — nothing about scope, filtering, or whether results are cached/live.
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 front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundancy, which is appropriate for a no-argument list operation. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description is minimally sufficient. It still omits how this lister relates to the cluster of IPv6 and DHCP static-binding tools, which is the one thing a short description could cheaply have supplied.
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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. Nothing in the description is needed or missing here.
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 ('列出'/list) and resource (IPv6 prefix static bindings), so an agent knows what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as list_dhcp_static_bindings, list_ipv6_neighbors, or get_ipv6_config, and the term '静态分配' is slightly ambiguous against the tool name's 'static bindings'.
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 indication of when to call this versus the many other IPv6/DHCP binding listers in the sibling set, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.