zte-f6600p

router_execute_action

Destructive

Execute an explicitly confirmed, allowlisted wire-level action on a ZTE F6600P router, using a specific handler and action instead of a generic patch.

Instructions

Expert wire-level operation from the allowlisted catalog, not a generic patch. Review endpoint fields/hooks first. Requires writes enabled and explicit approval; disruptive actions require a second opt-in. Never assume Cancel means undo.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "handler": "<handler>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "router_execute_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`query`	No
`action`	Yes
`confirm`	Yes
`handler`	Yes
`parameters`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new context: writes must be enabled, explicit approval is required, disruptive actions need a second opt-in, and 'Never assume Cancel means undo'. That last warning is a substantive behavioral caveat absent from the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Compact at roughly four sentences with no filler, and the safety constraints are placed up front. The opening clause is slightly abstract ('expert wire-level operation') where a concrete verb would serve better.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, six-parameter, nested-object tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description omits what valid handlers/actions are, how parameters/query are shaped, and what the call returns. The safety story is covered but the operational story is not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and nothing in the schema names or explains the six parameters. The description alludes to 'endpoint fields/hooks' and 'explicit approval' (loosely confirm), but page, query, handler, action, and parameters remain undefined, so the gap is not compensated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says it is an 'expert wire-level operation from the allowlisted catalog' and not a 'generic patch', which signals a low-level catalog action. But it never states the resource being operated on (router config via handler/action) nor distinguishes clearly from siblings like router_soap_action or router_read beyond the vague 'not a generic patch'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives real prerequisites ('Requires writes enabled and explicit approval; disruptive actions require a second opt-in') and a workflow hint ('Review endpoint fields/hooks first'). However it never says when to choose this over router_soap_action or router_read, so alternative routing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server