List wired hosts detected on access point LAN ports, including MAC, IP, VLAN, port, authentication status, and traffic details. Use it to inspect and troubleshoot wired clients by location or page.
List wired hosts seen on AP LAN ports (MAC, IP, VLAN, port, auth status, traffic).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | No | 0-based record offset | |
| page_size | No | Records per page (max 500) | |
| location_id | No | Scope to a location subtree |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the data source (AP LAN ports) and the fields returned, which tells the agent this is a read operation over AP-observed wired hosts. It says nothing about pagination behavior, freshness of the traffic counters, or what happens when a host is seen on multiple ports.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical field list packs in return-value detail without padding. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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, read-only, three-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the observation point, which substitutes for the missing output schema. The remaining gap is routing guidance versus cvcue_list_clients and cvcue_find_client.
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% (offset, page size max 500, location subtree scoping all documented in the schema), so the description need not repeat them. It adds no scoping hints of its own, making baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List wired hosts seen on AP LAN ports') and enumerates the returned fields, which implicitly separates it from the wireless-oriented cvcue_list_clients. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation requires the agent to infer it.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'wired hosts' suggests this is the tool for wired clients while cvcue_list_clients covers wireless, but no when/when-not guidance or explicit alternative is given. The agent must already know the sibling landscape to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.