Retrieves the active router operation mode—3G/4G Router or Wireless Router—so you can verify configuration before troubleshooting or changing network settings.
Retrieves the active router operation mode (3G/4G Router Mode vs Wireless Router Mode).
Args: force: Set to True to bypass Network Guard safety check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and usefully discloses the existence of a 'Network Guard safety check' that can block the call, but never explains what that guard is, why a read would be blocked, or what happens on failure.
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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact args note; every sentence carries information. The raw docstring 'Args:' formatting is slightly unpolished but not wasteful.
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 needn't be described, and the one parameter is meaningfully explained. For a simple single-value getter this is close to sufficient, with only the Network Guard mechanism left ambiguous.
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 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter, and it does: force bypasses the Network Guard safety check. It adds real meaning beyond the bare boolean type, though it leaves the guard's trigger conditions unexplained.
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?
Specific verb (Retrieves) plus resource (active router operation mode) with the possible values enumerated (3G/4G Router Mode vs Wireless Router Mode). It doesn't differentiate itself from the nearest read-only sibling, router_get_status, which also reports router state.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. An agent must infer from the name that this is the mode-specific reader rather than the general status reader.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.