add_ip_groupCreate a named IP address group on an iKuai router to organize multiple IPs for firewall, routing, or access rules.
添加 IP 地址分组
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| comment | No | ||
| ip_list | No | ||
| ip_type | No | v4 |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about permissions, idempotency, duplicate handling, side effects, or authentication requirements—significant gaps for a mutation tool that creates a new IP group.
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 a single short phrase with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads the action but contains far too little information to guide correct invocation.
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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that only covers returns, the description is completely inadequate. An agent would need to infer parameter meanings, usage conditions, and behavioral traits from nothing.
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% for 4 parameters (name, comment, ip_list, ip_type). The description mentions 'IP address group' generically but provides no meaning, format, or constraints for any parameter, so it does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 clear verb and resource: '添加 IP 地址分组' (Add IP address group). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate this tool from sibling add-operations such as add_mac_group, add_ip_speed_limit, or add_dhcp_static_binding.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about scenarios. It only names the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.