list_clientsList WireGuard clients from a wg-easy instance, showing enabled/expired status, addresses, and traffic stats. Supports sorting and filtering by name.
List all WireGuard clients of the wg-easy instance, including their status (enabled/expired), addresses and traffic statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort by name, ascending or descending | |
| filter | No | Optional name filter (substring match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying the returned fields (status, addresses, traffic statistics) and that it lists all clients. It does not overstate behavior or contradict annotations.
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 starts with the action and includes all essential information without unnecessary words. It wastes no space and is easy to parse.
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 relatively simple list operation, the description plus schema and readOnlyHint provide enough context. It states the scope ('all clients') and the key return contents. A minor gap is the absence of a mention of response shape or array format, but this is not critical given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'sort' and 'filter' clearly documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema fully covers semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('all WireGuard clients of the wg-easy instance') and the information returned (status, addresses, traffic statistics). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client, create_client, and delete_client.
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 phrase 'List all WireGuard clients' clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you need a complete overview of clients rather than a single client (get_client) or a mutating operation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.