list_lan_configsList all LAN port configurations on an iKuai router, including IP addresses and DHCP settings, to audit or troubleshoot the local network.
列出所有 LAN 口配置
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no information about scope of the returned config, pagination, or whether it aggregates multiple LAN ports. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.
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 sentence with no wasted words and the verb front-loaded, which is structurally fine for a trivial list tool. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and it is written in Chinese while the tool name and sibling set are English, which slightly hurts scannability.
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 tool is parameterless. Still, for a device-configuration listing in a 200-tool fleet, the description provides no routing cues, no scope detail, and no differentiation from adjacent LAN/WAN/VLAN listers, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name.
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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. A 4 is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool; only the word 'all' is relevant, and it correctly signals a non-filtered listing.
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 '列出所有 LAN 口配置' gives a verb (列出) and a resource (LAN 口配置), so the intent is legible, but it essentially restates the tool name list_lan_configs and adds only the word 'all'. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_wan_configs, list_vlan_configs, or get_ipv6_lan_config, nor does it say which LAN settings are covered.
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_*/get_* config tools in the sibling set (e.g. list_wan_configs, list_vlan_configs, get_ipv6_lan_config). The single word 'all' hints at an unfiltered listing but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.