View current UPnP NAT mappings on a DrayTek Vigor router to verify port forwards and troubleshoot connectivity. Returns read-only status of active NAT entries.
UPnP NAT view (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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The explicit 'read-only' parenthetical communicates that invoking the tool should have no side effects, which is valuable. However, it gives no other behavioral context such as what the output contains or whether the view reflects current live mappings.
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, consisting of a single clear phrase with no filler or redundant clauses. The read-only note is immediately meaningful for agent safety. Every word earns its place for a zero-parameter view tool.
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 low complexity and empty schema, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource and safety profile. However, with no output schema and many sibling view commands, it would benefit from stating that this shows the UPnP NAT port mapping table or similar specifics. As written, it leaves enough ambiguity for an agent to confuse it with general NAT or port-map views.
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 input schema has zero parameters回声, and the schema description coverage is effectively 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately adds nothing misleading. There is no parameter information needed 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 names a specific resource, 'UPnP NAT', and an action, 'view', which is enough to understand the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like show_nat, nat_view, or show_portmap, though the 'UPnP' qualifier helps narrow it. There is no tautology and the read-only marker adds useful scope.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_nat, show_portmap, or nat_view. The description only identifies the operation, not any condition, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no basis for choosing it over similarly named siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.