add_acl_ruleAdds an ACL rule to an iKuai router to permit or deny traffic, with settings for protocol, source/destination, ports, direction, interface, and schedule.
添加 ACL 规则
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| comment | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| dst_addr | No | ||
| dst_port | No | ||
| protocol | No | any | |
| src_addr | No | ||
| src_port | No | ||
| direction | No | forward | |
| interface | No | ||
| time_range | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, and it discloses nothing: no permission requirements, no confirmation of what a mutation does, no side effects, no ordering relative to rules. A one-phrase restatement of the name is a total gap for a write tool.
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 single phrase is free of padding, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — it is far too short for an 11-parameter mutation tool. There is no front-loaded substance because there is no substance at all.
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?
Given 11 parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations, the description should compensate heavily; it does not. The presence of an output schema excuses only the omission of return-value details, which is nowhere near enough here.
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% across 11 parameters, and the description explains none of them. Fields like action, direction, protocol, src_addr/dst_addr, src_port/dst_port, interface, and time_range are all undocumented, with no accepted values (e.g. that action/direction/protocol are likely enum-like strings) given anywhere.
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 '添加 ACL 规则' is a direct restatement of the tool name/title in another language, adding no information beyond the identifier. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings list_acl_rules, delete_acl_rule, or toggle_acl_rule.
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?
No guidance whatsoever on when to use this versus the other ACL tools, no prerequisites, no mention that an ACL rule typically needs a direction/interface/action context. An agent gets no help choosing among the ACL siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.