Skip to main content
Glama

list_network_interfaces

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists active local network interfaces, IPv4 addresses, and netmasks for configuring the DCP discovery library used by the scanner; it does not scan or connect to devices.

Instructions

列出可用于原扫描器同版 DCP 发现库的本机活动网卡、IPv4 和掩码;不会扫描或连接设备。

Tool call template

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": "list_network_interfaces"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by ruling out any scanning or connection side effects. It also discloses a meaningful compatibility constraint (results are limited to the interfaces the original scanner's DCP library can use), which is not in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource being listed, then adds the qualifying scope and the safety constraint. No redundant or filler wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema declared, the description supplies the scope, the compatibility constraint and the safety boundary — enough to call it correctly. Slightly more could be said about whether virtual/inactive interfaces are excluded, but the output schema carries the return-value burden.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 for a no-argument tool applies. The description does clarify what the fixed result set represents, which is the only semantic content available.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource set: lists local active network interfaces with IPv4 address and netmask, and qualifies them as those usable by the same-version DCP discovery library. It also pre-empts confusion with scan_network_devices by explicitly saying it neither scans nor connects to devices.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The negative clause ('will not scan or connect devices') makes the boundary with scan_network_devices / probe_device_read_only clear, implying this is the preparatory step for choosing a local interface. It stops short of naming the sibling tools or stating the follow-up action explicitly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.