multi_device_push_configValidates configuration batches for multiple network devices, then pushes commands sequentially, halting remaining devices and commands on the first failure without rollback.
Validate all batches, then push configuration sequentially. Stop remaining commands and devices on the first failure; no automatic rollback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| devices | Yes | Device / command batches |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the critical failure model: validate-all-then-push-sequentially, halt remaining commands AND devices on first failure, and explicitly no automatic rollback. What is missing is auth/permission requirements, idempotency, and what validation actually rejects — meaningful gaps for a write operation.
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 sentences, no filler, and the most consequential fact (no rollback on failure) is placed at the end of the second sentence where it lands. Every clause adds operational information.
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 nested-batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (validation, sequencing, partial-failure handling, no rollback). It stops short of stating auth requirements or what a caller receives on success, but the core is complete enough to invoke safely.
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% and the single parameter is documented in-schema as 'Device / command batches'. The description's references to 'batches', 'devices', and 'commands' are consistent with the schema but add no format, ordering, or size guidance beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 concrete verb+resource (push configuration) and the scope is implied as multi-device via 'remaining commands and devices' and the tool name. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the single-device siblings push_config / mcp_push_config / execute_cli, so an agent must infer the multi-device distinction from the name alone.
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 explains execution semantics but gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite several overlapping siblings (push_config, mcp_push_config, execute_cli, mcp_execute). An agent cannot tell from this text when to pick multi_device_push_config over push_config for a batch of devices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.