set_dmzConfigure a DMZ host on an iKuai router: enable DMZ and set the interface and internal IP to expose a local device to the internet.
配置 DMZ 主机
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | ||
| interface | No | ||
| internal_ip | 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, yet it does nothing beyond restating the tool name. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether it replaces or merges existing DMZ settings, what happens when enabled=false, or any auth/permission requirements.
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?
Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A four-word phrase cannot front-load the information an agent needs for a 3-parameter mutation.
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?
A configuration-mutating tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a bare description is not complete enough to invoke confidently. The presence of an output schema only covers return values, not the behavioral and parameter context that is missing.
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% and the description is silent on all three parameters (enabled, interface, internal_ip). With 3 undocumented params and no compensating text, the agent cannot know how interface or internal_ip interact with enabled.
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?
States a specific verb (配置/configure) and resource (DMZ 主机), so the agent knows this mutates DMZ host settings. However, it gives no scope detail and does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_dmz_config, leaving ambiguity about what aspect of DMZ is being set.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the read counterpart get_dmz_config. The agent must infer that this is the write operation paired with that getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.