list_packagesRetrieves the available packages on an iKuai router so AI assistants can review plan options for network service setup or management.
列出套餐
| 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?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description's burden is lighter. Nonetheless, the description adds zero behavioral context — no indication of what a 'package' is in this system, whether results are paginated, or any auth requirements.
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 no waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any useful information.
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, but the term '套餐' (packages/plans) is ambiguous in a router-management context full of billing, coupon, and VPN-account tools. The description leaves an agent unable to tell what this list actually contains.
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 (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so per the baseline rule a 4 applies. There are 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 '列出套餐' states a clear verb (list) and resource (packages), so the agent knows the basic operation. However, it adds nothing beyond the title 'List Packages' and offers no scope, filtering, or domain context (billing plans? coupon packages?) to distinguish it from the many other list_* siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.