Test latency of a single proxy node or an entire group, and for groups, return a few nodes sorted by latency.
测延迟:传 name 测单个节点,传 group 测整组并给出最快的几个
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | 测速 URL,默认 gstatic generate_204 | |
| name | No | 节点名 | |
| group | No | 代理组名(测整组) | |
| timeout | No | 超时毫秒,默认 5000 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral fact — group mode returns the fastest few nodes — but says nothing about the probe being a slow network operation bounded by timeout, whether it blocks, whether it mutates config, or what failures look like.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 测延迟, then the two mode branches. No filler, no repetition of schema fields.
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?
All parameters are optional, so the call is cheap, and the group-mode return ('fastest few') is hinted at. With no output schema, however, the single-node result shape, units, and failure/timeout reporting are left entirely undefined.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions for url, name, group, and timeout, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond the schema by establishing that name and group are mode selectors (single node vs whole group), a mutually-exclusive semantic the schema never states.
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 states a specific verb+resource (测延迟 / latency test) and clarifies the two operating modes keyed on name vs group. No sibling tool (list_proxies, switch_proxy, get_connections, etc.) performs latency probing, so it is naturally distinguishable, though it never explicitly contrasts 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?
It gives concrete routing guidance for its own modes: pass name to test a single node, pass group to test an entire group. That tells the agent which parameter to reach for in which scenario, but it offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which the tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.