Triggers immediate NTP time synchronization on a TP-Link router to correct clock drift; optionally force the sync to bypass Network Guard safety checks.
Triggers an immediate NTP network time synchronization on the router.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that force bypasses a Network Guard safety check, but it does not explain what that check protects against, whether the action is reversible, or what side effects the synchronization may have.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the main action and followed by a compact explanation of the single argument. There is no redundant or wasted text.
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?
The tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and includes an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core action and the safety-bypass flag, though it could say more about the consequences of bypassing Network Guard.
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%, so the description must explain the sole parameter, and it does: force=True bypasses the Network Guard safety check. It could still elaborate on what Network Guard is or when bypassing it is appropriate, but the core semantic is clear.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: triggering an immediate NTP network time synchronization on the router. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling router_get_time, which retrieves time rather than synchronizing it.
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 implies when to use the tool by saying it triggers an immediate synchronization, but it does not explicitly compare it with alternatives such as router_get_time or state when not to use it. Usage is therefore inferable but not fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.