Display the current DoS blocking list to see IP addresses blacklisted by the router. Use this read-only command to verify active Denial-of-Service protections.
Show DoS blocking list (read-only)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only behavior, which is a key guarantee. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like authentication requirements or output format, but for a simple show command this is adequate. The read-only disclosure is valuable and not contradicted by any annotation.
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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with no wasted words. The verb is front-loaded, and the read-only qualifier adds necessary information without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it states the action and the read-only nature. It does not describe the output format, but that is less critical for a straightforward show command. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. According to the baseline, 0 params gives a score of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to describe, so it meets the baseline.
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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('DoS blocking list'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like dos_whitelist_show and dos_activate/deactivate. It fully communicates what the tool does without ambiguity.
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 through the read-only note, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dos_whitelist_show or dos_activate. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, only an implicit read-only hint that distinguishes it from mutating actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.