get_network_interfacesRetrieve all network interfaces with their IP addresses and link status to diagnose connectivity and inspect Linux network configuration.
Returns all network interfaces with IPs and link status (ip addr, ip link).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds the return content ('IPs and link status') and the underlying commands (ip addr, ip link), which is modest but real added context.
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, stating what is returned and how it maps to standard Linux tooling. 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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough for correct invocation and even hints at the returned fields. Only a brief note on output format detail would make it fully complete.
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 the empty schema is consistent with the described behavior.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('all network interfaces') plus the scope of returned data (IPs and link status). This clearly separates it from the surrounding system-info siblings like get_system_info, get_cpu_usage, and get_disk_usage.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternatives, but the narrow resource scope makes selection among siblings largely self-evident for a zero-parameter tool. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.