get_dhcp_staticList static DHCP reservations configured on a Keenetic router, showing fixed IP bindings instead of dynamic pool leases. Use it to audit or verify permanent MAC-to-IP assignments.
List static DHCP reservations ('ip dhcp host'). Unlike get_dhcp_leases, which only shows dynamic pool leases, this shows fixed bindings.
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the content distinction (fixed bindings) and the CLI reference, with no mention of output format or pagination — adequate but modest added value given the annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the disambiguating comparison. No filler.
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 zero-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. Only the absence of any note about return shape or empty-result behavior keeps it from a 5.
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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not misrepresent any inputs.
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 (List) and resource (static DHCP reservations), and adds the underlying CLI equivalent 'ip dhcp host' for grounding. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_dhcp_leases, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.
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?
It names the alternative tool (get_dhcp_leases) and the condition that separates them: dynamic pool leases vs. fixed bindings. That is clear routing guidance, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need X' directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.