list_proxy_dial_onlineLists currently online proxy dial accounts. Use to monitor active proxy dial connections on iKuai routers.
列出代拨在线账号
注意：pppoe_proxy_online 在 4.0.313 免费版上返回 1003（企业版功能）。
| 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, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it warns that the underlying pppoe_proxy_online call returns error 1003 on the 4.0.313 free build because this is an enterprise feature. That failure-mode disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.
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 lines, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a single caveat sentence; nothing is padded. The caveat references a differently named API (`pppoe_proxy_online`), which is slightly oblique but still earns its place.
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, and a zero-parameter read tool has a small surface to cover. The description supplies purpose plus the licensing/failure caveat, though it stops short of distinguishing this list from the sibling proxy-dial account listing.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there are no argument semantics for the description to clarify or omit.
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 gives a clear verb+resource ("列出代拨在线账号" / list proxy-dial online accounts) that maps directly to the tool name. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the very similar sibling list_proxy_dial_accounts, leaving the agent to infer the difference between a full account list and an online-only view.
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?
Usage is only implied by the "online" qualifier in the purpose line; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_proxy_dial_accounts or list_pppoe_online_users. The note about the free-version behavior hints at a prerequisite (enterprise license) but is framed as an API caveat rather than a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.