list_clientsRetrieve all clients across every inbound on the panel, showing email, protocol, enabled status, and traffic limits. Use it to audit or export client configurations.
List every client across all inbounds on the panel, with their email, protocol, enabled state, and traffic limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope (all inbounds) and the fields returned, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response size, pagination, or performance implications. With annotations in place, this is adequate but not rich in extra context.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately front-loads the core purpose—'List every client across all inbounds'—and then efficiently lists the returned fields. No unnecessary words or repetition; it earns its place with every word.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is almost complete. It specifies the scope (all inbounds) and the fields returned, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what it does. It lacks details on pagination or sorting, but such details are not critical for a simple list operation and are not expected given the minimal complexity.
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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any parameters. Schema description coverage is trivially 100% (no properties), and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output scope and fields, adding no irrelevant parameter noise.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and the resource ('every client across all inbounds'), which is specific and unambiguous. It also enumerates the fields returned (email, protocol, enabled state, traffic limits) and distinguishes from siblings like list_online_clients and get_client by emphasizing 'every client across all inbounds.'
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 implies usage by stating it lists every client across all inbounds, which suggests it is the go-to for a complete unfiltered list. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., for online-only clients use list_online_clients, or for a single client use get_client). No clear alternative is named, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.