View the active NAT port redirection table to inspect current port forwarding rules. This read-only command helps verify configured redirections without altering router settings.
NAT port redirection running 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key safety trait with 'read-only' and indicates dynamic state via 'running table.' However, it does not describe output format, pagination, or any runtime caveats.
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, front-loaded noun phrase with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status command.
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 simple parameterless read-only listing, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, indicates it is a table, and signals read-only behavior. It would benefit from a explicit contrast with show_portmap/nat_view, but nothing essential about invoking the tool is missing.
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 schema fully defines the invocation surface. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter syntax, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 names a specific resource, 'NAT port redirection running table,' and explicitly marks it read-only. It is clear enough to distinguish this as a status/view tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like show_portmap or nat_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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nat_view, show_portmap, or upnp_nat. The word 'running' implies current runtime state, but this is not made explicit enough to route an agent reliably.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.