get_dhcp_leasesRetrieves devices currently holding DHCP leases from the router pool, including lease expiry times. Use it to inspect active DHCP clients; fixed reservations are excluded.
Devices holding a lease from the DHCP pool, with expiry time. Fixed reservations are not leases: see get_dhcp_static.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are lease-holders with expiry, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or whether expired leases appear. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but thin.
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, no filler, with the core definition first and the sibling disambiguation second. Every clause earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's mention of expiry time is the only hint at return shape, and it is a useful one. For a parameterless read tool with full annotation coverage, that is close to sufficient; only result volume or ordering is unaddressed.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly frames the output as an unfiltered list, which implicitly confirms there is nothing to pass in.
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 the precise resource (devices holding a lease from the DHCP pool) and what is returned alongside it (expiry time), which is more specific than the title. The verb is implicit rather than stated, but an agent can tell exactly what data this yields and how it differs from get_dhcp_static.
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?
Explicitly excludes fixed reservations and routes that case to the named sibling get_dhcp_static, which is the main ambiguity among the DHCP-related tools. It doesn't state the reverse condition (when to prefer get_dhcp_static over this), but that is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.