Retrieve IPv6 WAN status from a TP-Link router. Returns supported=false if the router does not support IPv6.
IPv6 WAN 状態。未対応の場合は supported=false。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_ipv6_status"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one output behavior (supported=false when IPv6 is unsupported), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature beyond the 'get' name, auth requirements, or the rest of the response shape.
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 the purpose followed by the edge-case behavior. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness leaves the tool under-explained rather than maximally efficient.
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?
Given a simple zero-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description only hints at a single return field ('supported'). It is minimal but just enough for an agent to know what the call returns at a high level.
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, and the description offers no parameter information, which is the expected baseline for a no-arg tool.
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?
The description names a specific verb+resource ('IPv6 WAN 状態' / IPv6 WAN status), which is clearly distinct from other status-returning siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_ipv4_status or router_overview, so an agent must infer the split.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_ipv4_status or router_overview, and no prerequisites or exclusions given. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.