Write HTML content to a device's HTTP service page, such as index.html, in Cisco Packet Tracer.
Write a page of a server's HTTP service, for example index.html.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Page name, for example `index.html`. | |
| device | Yes | ||
| contents | Yes | HTML contents. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| bytes | Yes | ||
| device | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows the call mutates state but is not flagged destructive. The description adds the useful context that this writes into an HTTP service, but says nothing about overwrite behavior when the page already exists, permissions, or failure modes — the main behavioral question for a file-writing tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler and the example placed immediately after the core statement. Efficient, though extremely short given the tool's mutation semantics.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a three-required-parameter write tool, the description leaves the device parameter's meaning and overwrite semantics unstated, which an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 67%: url and contents are documented in the schema, while device has no description. The description implies 'server' is the target of device but does not name or constrain it, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.
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 and resource: 'Write a page of a server's HTTP service', with an example (index.html). An agent can distinguish this from sibling set_server_service, though the description never contrasts the two explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like set_server_service, browse_web, or host_files. There are no prerequisites, no mention of the device needing to be a server, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.