Find active or recently seen Wi-Fi clients by MAC address, IP, username, or device name. Returns all matches after checking the most specific identifier first.
Find a client by MAC, IP, username or device name (active or recently seen). Tries the most specific field first and returns all matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Client MAC, IP address, username or device name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: the lookup scope (active or recently seen clients) and that multiple matches can be returned. It does not say what happens on zero matches, whether ambiguous queries fall back across fields, or anything about permissions or result fields.
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?
Two short sentences with the resource and accepted identifiers front-loaded; every clause conveys information and nothing is redundant.
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 one-parameter read lookup this is close to complete: scope, matching order and multi-match behavior are all covered. The remaining gap is the shape of the results (which client fields come back), which is only partly excused by the absence of an output schema.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already explains the accepted identifier types. The description adds a little matching semantics ('most specific field first', 'returns all matches') but no format hints such as MAC notation or username syntax, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('client') plus the four accepted identifier types, which clearly separates it from enumeration-oriented siblings like cvcue_list_clients and cvcue_list_wired_clients. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 parenthetical '(active or recently seen)' and 'Tries the most specific field first' imply when this lookup is appropriate versus browsing a list, but no sibling alternative is named and there is no statement of when not to use it (e.g. for bulk listing or fuzzy name search).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.