genieacs-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent write operation (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—no mention of what 'reboot' entails operationally, potential downtime, authentication needs, or rate limits. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words—'Reboot a CPE via GenieACS'—directly stating the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature (per annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during a reboot, potential impacts, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool with safety implications.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'device_id' fully documented in the schema as 'Exact device ID (_id) as known by GenieACS'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Reboot') and target resource ('a CPE via GenieACS'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'download_firmware' (firmware updates) and 'refresh_parameter' (parameter refreshes). It uses precise technical terminology that matches the tool's domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or warnings about potential side effects. It doesn't mention when not to use it or what conditions might make it inappropriate, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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