list_local_servicesRetrieve the status of local Samba, FTP, and HTTP services on an iKuai router to monitor availability and diagnose service access issues.
列出本地服务状态（Samba/FTP/HTTP）
注意：免费版固件（实测 4.0.313）未编译这些服务端模块，会返回
code=1003 Access denied。企业版可用。
| 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 only declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the exact failure signature (code=1003 Access denied) and the firmware-edition constraint that causes it, so the agent knows a call may legitimately fail rather than being misconfigured.
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?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the operational caveat second. Nothing is redundant; every clause carries information the agent needs before calling.
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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose plus the key caveat that otherwise would produce a confusing error. It is complete for a zero-parameter read tool.
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 this dimension defaults to the baseline 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter semantics, and none are needed.
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) plus the resource (本地服务/local services) and enumerates which services (Samba/FTP/HTTP), which separates it from siblings like enable_ftp or get_system_overview. An agent can identify the scope without opening the schema.
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?
Provides a concrete when-not condition: free-edition firmware (tested 4.0.313) lacks the server modules and returns code=1003, while enterprise firmware works. It does not name alternative siblings for the free-edition case, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.