add_mac_access_controlAdd a MAC address to an iKuai router's access control list to allow or block network access, with optional time range and comment.
添加 MAC 访问控制
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mac | Yes | ||
| action | No | drop | |
| comment | No | ||
| enabled | 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, and it discloses nothing: not whether the rule takes effect immediately, what permissions are required, or that the 'action' field defaults to 'drop' (i.e., blocking traffic). For a security-policy mutation tool this is a serious 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?
The single short sentence is technically concise but is under-specification rather than economy of language. It is also the only Chinese text in an otherwise English tool catalog, which is a structural inconsistency.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and a missing output schema, the description provides no completeness at all. An agent cannot determine what a MAC access-control entry does or how to populate the five fields.
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 5 parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. The meaning of 'action' (drop vs allow), 'time_range' format ('00:00-23:59'), 'enabled', and 'comment' are all left entirely undocumented.
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?
"添加 MAC 访问控制" (Add MAC access control) merely restates the tool name and title in Chinese. It specifies a verb and resource but adds no distinguishing detail beyond what the name already conveys, nor does it separate itself from siblings like list_mac_access_control or delete_mac_access_control.
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 tool versus list_mac_access_control or delete_mac_access_control. No prerequisites, no context about whether this applies to a terminal, group, or global policy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.