list_nat_rulesRetrieve all NAT rules configured on an iKuai router to audit port forwarding, troubleshoot connectivity, or review network address translation settings.
列出 NAT 规则
| 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 structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the title itself — nothing about pagination, filtering, or what the rule set contains.
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 front-loaded phrase with zero waste, but at this length the terseness reads as under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is no second sentence to clarify scope.
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 no parameters, an output schema present, and readOnlyHint annotations, the minimal description is arguably sufficient for correct invocation. Still, it omits any explanation of what a NAT rule is or what the listing contains, leaving the agent reliant on the name alone.
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 of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify.
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 names a clear verb+resource (list NAT rules), so an agent immediately knows this is a read of NAT rule entries. However, among dozens of sibling list_* tools (list_acl_rules, list_port_mappings, list_protocol_forwarding_rules, etc.) it offers no differentiation of scope or domain.
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 alternatives such as list_acl_rules or list_port_mappings, and no prerequisites or context are stated. The agent must 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.