Lists all proxy groups, showing current selections, candidate nodes, and latency overview for mihomo/Clash Meta.
列出所有代理组(含每组当前选中节点和全部候选节点名)与节点延迟概览
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_proxies"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does useful work by spelling out the return payload (per-group selected node, full candidate list, delay overview), which signals a read-only inspection operation. However, it never explicitly states that it is non-mutating, and says nothing about latency of the call, caching, or whether delays are fetched live.
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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded (list all proxy groups) followed by the parenthetical detail on contents. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape itself, and it does so reasonably well: groups, selected node, candidate nodes, and delay overview. For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations this is nearly sufficient; only the explicit read-only nature and live-vs-cached delay semantics are missing.
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 and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter 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?
The description gives a specific verb ("列出" / list) and resource ("所有代理组" / all proxy groups), then goes further by enumerating what each entry contains: the currently selected node, all candidate node names, and a delay overview. That level of detail makes the tool distinguishable from action-oriented siblings like switch_proxy or delay_test. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting scope, so it is not a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the inspection call to run before switch_proxy or delay_test, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or what alternative to prefer. No prerequisites or context conditions are given. This is the minimum viable level rather than genuine routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.