Configure DHCP settings by enabling/disabling the service, setting lease duration, and defining the IP address range using the last octet (192.168.1.X).
Modifie la configuration DHCP. Les bornes sont le dernier octet (192.168.1.X).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | No | ||
| lease_seconds | No | ||
| range_end_last_octet | No | ||
| range_start_last_octet | No |
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 burden, yet it says nothing about mutation semantics, whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, permission requirements, or validation of the octet bounds. It only clarifies the range encoding.
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 action and followed by the one genuinely clarifying detail. Efficient, though the terse phrasing leaves semantic gaps.
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?
A mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs far more than two sentences. It does not state what a successful change affects or how to interpret the remaining parameters.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that the range bounds refer to the last octet (192.168.1.X), clarifying range_start/end_last_octet, but active and lease_seconds remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb (modifie) and resource (configuration DHCP), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling dhcp_status. It is recognizable without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly name the read counterpart.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of reading state first via dhcp_status, and no exclusions. The purpose implies usage but nothing routes the agent or warns about mutation prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.