get_keendns_mappingsFetches KeenDNS and web-access mappings from the router's running configuration (ip http proxy) to show domain proxy settings.
KeenDNS / web-access mappings from running-config ('ip http proxy'). Complements get_web_access, which reads the generated nginx config instead.
| 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 carried for free. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data is read from running-config ('ip http proxy'), making it the authoritative source rather than a derived config. It does not describe return shape or ordering.
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 compact sentences, each earning its place: the first states scope and provenance, the second disambiguates from the nearest sibling. Front-loaded with the resource name and 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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, provenance, and sibling differentiation adequately. It could be richer by sketching the returned fields (e.g. mapping name and target), but the annotations already cover safety and side effects.
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 of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of 'ip http proxy' is a useful hint about the underlying config key but is not parameter guidance.
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?
Specifies the resource (KeenDNS / web-access mappings) and its source of truth ('running-config', 'ip http proxy'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings. It also explicitly names the closest sibling (get_web_access) and the differing data source, so no schema inspection is needed to tell them apart.
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 description positions the tool against get_web_access by contrasting data sources (running-config vs generated nginx config), which implies when to pick each. It stops short of stating an explicit 'use this when / not when', so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.