View the active IP session table on the router to inspect current network connections, useful for monitoring traffic and diagnosing connectivity issues.
IP session table (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 present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that this is a read-only operation, which is the key side-effect trait, but it does not mention whether data is a snapshot, how current it is, or what output shape to expect.
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 compact and front-loads the two useful facts: the resource ('IP session table') and the mutability class ('read-only'). Every word 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is sufficiently complete to invoke correctly and understand the general domain of the result. It is slightly incomplete because it does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the resource type strongly implies tabular data.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is required here.
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 identifies a specific resource ('IP session table') and its read-only nature, making the intended operation clear even without an explicit verb. It does not distinguish the tool from similarly named siblings like show_session, which is why it is not a 5.
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 is provided, nor are alternatives or exclusions named. The only signal is 'read-only', which implies non-mutation but does not help an agent decide between ip_session and sibling tools such as show_session, show_statistic, or sys_max_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.