List all managed /etc/hosts entries added through Kali-MCP, displaying each entry's IP address and associated hostnames.
List all managed /etc/hosts entries added via Kali-MCP.
Returns: List of managed entries with IP and hostnames
Example: hosts_list()
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation without destructive effects, but does not explicitly state safety, rate limits, or that it only returns managed entries. It is adequate but could be more explicit.
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?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence, followed by output format and an example. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple parameterless tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and returns. It could mention the scope (only MCP-managed entries) is already implied. Nearly 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 input schema has zero parameters, with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate as there are none. Baseline of 3 is correct.
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 clearly states the tool lists managed /etc/hosts entries added via Kali-MCP. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like hosts_add, hosts_clear, and hosts_remove.
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 implies usage for viewing managed entries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It is functional but lacks contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.