list_protocol_forwarding_rulesList protocol-based routing rules on an iKuai router to inspect how traffic is forwarded by protocol and verify current network policies.
列出协议分流规则
| 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 supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that safety signal — nothing about what the rules govern, whether the list is paginated, or any scoping constraints. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the omission of everything else leaves the disclosure thin.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — it consumes no space yet conveys no information beyond the title.
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 description still provides nothing about what protocol forwarding rules are or how they relate to the port/domain forwarding tools. For a list tool in a dense sibling cluster, this is inadequate routing context.
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 for parameter semantics is 4 — there is nothing to document and no coverage gap the description needs to compensate for.
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?
"列出协议分流规则" is a literal Chinese restatement of the tool title and name — it names a verb and resource but adds nothing an agent could not already infer from the identifier itself. It also fails to distinguish this tool from near-name siblings such as list_port_forwarding_rules and list_domain_forwarding_rules, which differ only by the forwarding dimension.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the sibling list_port_forwarding_rules / list_domain_forwarding_rules alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this covers protocol-based (rather than port- or domain-based) forwarding.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.