get_web_accessList web applications exposed to the internet through Keenetic DDNS, helping you identify services reachable from outside your router.
Get list of web applications exposed to the internet via Keenetic DDNS
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful scope qualifier that these apps are exposed via Keenetic DDNS, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or what an entry represents.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is brief to the point of being slightly terse, but nothing is wasted.
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 list tool with full annotation coverage and no nested or required inputs, the description is nearly sufficient. A minor gap is that it does not hint at the shape of each returned entry, and no output schema exists to cover that.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb (Get list) and a well-scoped resource: web applications exposed to the internet via Keenetic DDNS. This is distinguishable from nearby siblings like get_port_forwarding and get_keendns_mappings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus the many other read-only getters, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.