Check auxiliary AsusWRT router service status without exposing credentials, file paths, clients, or raw configuration. Use it to audit service posture safely.
Inspect auxiliary router service posture without credentials, paths, clients, or raw service configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: no credentials are required and the output omits paths, clients, and raw service configuration (a sanitization guarantee). It does not state read-only-ness explicitly, rate limits, or response shape.
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. The exclusion list is efficient, though the phrasing is slightly oblique and would benefit from naming a concrete service or two.
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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what "auxiliary service posture" contains or name covered services. It covers the credential/sanitization angle but leaves the content of the result undefined.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The empty schema is consistent with a no-argument status probe.
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?
Names a verb ("Inspect") and a resource ("auxiliary router service posture"), but "auxiliary services" is never defined, so an agent cannot tell which services are covered versus siblings like asuswrt_samba_status, asuswrt_upnp_status, or asuswrt_service_processes. The exclusion clause narrows scope but does not positively describe what is returned.
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 and no routing to alternatives. With a dense sibling set of service-specific status tools, the agent gets no signal about when this generic status check is preferred over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.