list_time_plansList all configured time plans on an iKuai router so you can review schedules used for access control, bandwidth limits, or firewall rules.
列出时间计划
| 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 this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that — no scope, no pagination/filtering behavior, no note about what a 'time plan' contains. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description earns little credit.
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 phrase, front-loaded with no wasted words. Its brevity is defensible for a parameterless read tool, but it borders on under-specification rather than polished conciseness.
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 there are no parameters to document, which covers most of the burden. However, the description supplies no context on what a time plan is or when listing them is relevant in this crowded toolset.
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 schema declares zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify and no coverage gap 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?
The description '列出时间计划' (List Time Plans) is a literal restatement of the tool's title, adding no distinguishing detail. It does encode verb+resource, but nothing separates it from the many other list_* siblings beyond the resource word itself.
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 among the ~200 sibling tools. The agent is left to infer context 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.