add_port_forwarding_ruleCreate a port forwarding rule on an iKuai router to direct traffic by protocol, source/destination address and port, and target WAN interface.
添加端口分流规则
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| dst_addr | No | ||
| dst_port | No | ||
| protocol | No | tcp+udp | |
| src_addr | No | ||
| src_port | No | ||
| interface | No | wan2 |
| 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: no mention of required permissions, whether the rule takes effect immediately, reversibility, or how defaults are applied. For a mutation tool 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?
The single short phrase is not padded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here reflects missing content, not efficiency.
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 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and only a name restatement is far from complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, even though an output schema exists.
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 exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Fields like src_addr, dst_port, protocol, and interface are left completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 phrase '添加端口分流规则' only restates the tool title 'Add Port Forwarding Rule' in another language; it conveys no more than the name already does. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_port_forwarding_rules or delete_port_forwarding_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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the sibling list/delete variants, nor any prerequisite or context. The description offers no usage guidance at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.