list_pppoe_online_usersRetrieve the PPPoE accounts currently online on an iKuai router, so you can monitor active sessions and troubleshoot connectivity.
列出当前在线账号
| 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 the description adds nothing beyond that: no note on freshness of the 'online' data, whether it reflects live sessions or a cached snapshot, or any auth/rate-limit context. It is a pure restatement of the name.
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 filler, front-loading the verb and scope. It is efficient, though its brevity is a consequence of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, so the remaining burden is small. However, for a zero-argument list tool it still omits any scoping or sibling differentiation, leaving it only minimally adequate.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema has no gaps to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.
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 ('列出当前在线账号' / list currently online accounts) states a verb and resource, but it is generic and does not mention PPPoE, so it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as list_pppoe_accounts or list_proxy_dial_online. An agent must rely on the tool name to know the scope is PPPoE sessions.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like list_pppoe_accounts (all accounts) versus this online-only view or kick_pppoe_user. The agent gets no routing signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.