Retrieve live 4G LTE signal metrics such as RSRP, RSRQ, SNR, and signal bars to guide router placement and antenna alignment for better speed.
Retrieves real-time 4G LTE RF signal metrics (RSRP, RSRQ, SNR, EARFCN, PCI, Signal Bars).
Guides router placement and antenna alignment for maximum 4G speed in Sri Lanka (e.g. Malabe/SLIIT).
| 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that data is 'real-time' (a genuinely useful trait), but never states that the tool is read-only/non-destructive, what the optional 'force' flag changes, whether the router must be reachable, or how a degraded/no-signal condition is reported.
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, front-loaded with the resource and metric list, with zero filler. The trailing geographic parenthetical (Malabe/SLIIT) is mildly superfluous but arguably contextualizes regional band behavior.
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 explaining return values is unnecessary, and for a simple getter the description is close to sufficient. However, with no annotations, it leaves the mutation-safety profile and the 'force' switch undocumented, which is a real gap for an agent deciding how to call it.
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 0% and the sole parameter 'force' is completely unexplained in the description. A 'force' flag on a read operation strongly implies cache-bypass or retry-on-failure semantics, but the agent must guess which — this is exactly the gap the description should close.
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 ('Retrieves real-time 4G LTE RF signal metrics') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (RSRP, RSRQ, SNR, EARFCN, PCI, Signal Bars). The metric list implicitly separates it from the broader router_get_status, though it never names that sibling 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?
Gives a plausible use case ('guides router placement and antenna alignment for maximum 4G speed') but frames it as a benefit rather than a trigger condition. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over router_get_status, router_profile_check, or the tuning siblings like router_set_lte_band and router_set_cell_lock.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.