add_app_protocol_ruleCreate an application protocol control rule on an iKuai router to permit or block selected apps by source address and time range.
添加应用协议控制规则
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prio | No | ||
| week | No | 1234567 | |
| action | Yes | ||
| comment | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| src_addrs | No | ||
| app_protos | No | ||
| time_range | No | 00:00-23:59 |
| 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, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, required permissions, precedence interactions with prio, or whether the rule is applied immediately. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a total gap.
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?
It is a single short phrase, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded verb, scope, or effect. Brevity here is a liability, not an asset.
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 need not be explained, but with 8 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a one-line tautological description, the definition is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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?
Eight parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for any of them (action, prio, app_protos, src_addrs, time_range, week, enabled, comment). An agent cannot tell what values 'action' or 'app_protos' accept.
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 '添加应用协议控制规则' merely restates the tool name/title in another language; it is a tautology with no added detail about scope, effect, or what an 'app protocol rule' controls. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_app_protocol_rules, delete_app_protocol_rule, or toggle_app_protocol_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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria are given. The sibling set contains list/delete/toggle variants, so routing guidance is genuinely needed here, but none is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.